The Project Gutenberg eBook of History for ready reference, Volume 3, Greece to Nibelungen

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: History for ready reference, Volume 3, Greece to Nibelungen

Author: J. N. Larned

Release date: June 13, 2022 [eBook #68302]

Language: English

Original publication: United States: C. A. Nichols Co, 1895

Credits: Don Kostuch

[Transcriber's Notes: These modifications are intended to provide
continuity of the text for ease of searching and reading.

1. To avoid breaks in the narrative, page numbers (shown in curly
   brackets "{1234}") are usually placed between paragraphs. In this
   case the page number is preceded and followed by an empty line.

   To remove page numbers use the Regular Expression:
     "^{[0-9]+}" to "" (empty string)

2. If a paragraph is exceptionally long, the page number is
   placed at the nearest sentence break on its own line, but
   without surrounding empty lines.

3. Blocks of unrelated text are moved to a nearby break
   between subjects.

5. Use of em dashes and other means of space saving are replaced
   with spaces and newlines.

6. Subjects are arranged thusly:
   Main titles are at the left margin, in all upper case
   (as in the original) and are preceded by an empty line.

   Subtitles (if any) are indented three spaces and
   immediately follow the main title.

   Text of the article (if any) follows the list of subtitles (if
   any) and is preceded with an empty line and indented three

   References to other articles in this work are in all upper case
   (as in the original) and indented six spaces. They usually
   begin with "See", "Also" or "Also in".

   Citations of works outside this book are indented six spaces
   and in italics (as in the original). The bibliography in Volume
   1, APPENDIX F on page xxi provides additional details,
   including URLs of available internet versions.

   ----------Subject: Start--------
   ----------Subject: End----------
   indicates the start/end of a group of subheadings or other
   large block.

   To search for words separated by an unknown number of other
   characters, use this Regular Expression to find the words "first"
   and "second" separated by between 1 and 100 characters:

End Transcriber's Notes.]


History For Ready Reference, Volume 3 of 6

From The Best
Historians, Biographers, And Specialists

Their Own Words In A Complete
System Of History

For All Uses, Extending To All Countries And Subjects,
And Representing For Both Readers And Students The Better
And Newer Literature Of History In The English Language.


With Numerous Historical Maps From Original Studies
And Drawings By Alan C. Reiley

In Five Volumes

Volume III—Greece To Nibelungen Lied

Springfield, Mass.
The C. A. Nichols Co., Publishers


Copyright, 1894.
By J. N. Larned.

The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Mass., U. S. A.
Printed by H. O. Houghton & Company.

List Of Maps.

Map of India, about the close of the Sixteenth Century,
   and map of the growth of the Anglo-Indian Empire,
   To follow page 1708.

Two maps of Italy, at the beginning of the Seventh Century,
   and A. D. 1492, To follow page 1804.

TWO maps of Italy, A. D. 1815 to 1859, and 1861,
   To follow page 1864.

Four maps of the Empire of Alexander the Great
   and his successors, To follow page 2061.

Map of the Mongol Empire, A. D. 1300, On page 2223.

Logical Outline, In Colors.

Irish History, To follow page 1754

Chronological Tables.

The Seventh Century, On page 2073

The Eighth Century, On page 2074


   ----------GREECE: Start----------

      [Footnote: An important part of Greek history is treated
      more fully under the heading "ATHENS" (in Volume 1), to
      which the reader is referred.]

   The Land.

   Its geographical characteristics, and their influence upon the

   "The considerable part played by the people of Greece during
   many ages must undoubtedly be ascribed to the geographical
   position of their country. Other tribes having the same
   origin, but inhabiting countries less happily situated—such,
   for instance, as the Pelasgians of Illyria, who are believed
   to be the ancestors of the Albanians—have never risen above a
   state of barbarism, whilst the Hellenes placed themselves at
   the head of civilised nations, and opened fresh paths to their
   enterprise. If Greece had remained for ever what it was during
   the tertiary geological epoch—a vast plain attached to the
   deserts of Libya, and run over by lions and the
   rhinoceros—would it have become the native country of a
   Phidias, an Æschylos, or a Demosthenes? Certainly not. It
   would have shared the fate of Africa, and, far from taking the
   initiative in civilisation, would have waited for an impulse
   to be given to it from beyond. Greece, a sub-peninsula of the
   peninsula of the Balkans, was even more completely protected
   by transverse mountain barriers in the north than was Thracia
   or Macedonia. Greek culture was thus able to develop itself
   without fear of being stifled at its birth by successive
   invasions of barbarians. Mounts Olympus, Pelion, and Ossa,
   towards the north and east of Thessaly, constituted the first
   line of formidable obstacles towards Macedonia. A second
   barrier, the steep range of the Othrys, runs along what is the
   present political boundary of Greece. To the south of the Gulf
   of Lamia a fresh obstacle awaits us, for the range of the Œta
   closes the passage, and there is but the narrow pass of the
   Thermopylæ between it and the sea. Having crossed the
   mountains of the Locri and descended into the basin of Thebæ,
   there still remain to be crossed the Parnes or the spurs of
   the Cithæron before we reach the plains of Attica. The
   'isthmus' beyond these is again defended by transverse
   barriers, outlying ramparts, as it were, of the mountain
   citadel of the Peloponnesus, that acropolis of all Greece.
   Hellas has frequently been compared to a series of chambers,
   the doors of which were strongly bolted; it was difficult to
   get in, but more difficult to get out again, owing to their
   stout defenders. Michelet likens Greece to a trap having three
   compartments. You entered, and found yourself taken first in
   Macedonia, then in Thessaly, then between the Thermopylæ and
   the isthmus. But the difficulties increase beyond the isthmus,
   and Lacedæmonia remained impregnable for a long time. At an
   epoch when the navigation even of a land-locked sea like the
   Ægean was attended with danger, Greece found herself
   sufficiently protected against the invasions of oriental
   nations; but, at the same time, no other country held out such
   inducements to the pacific expeditions of merchants. Gulfs and
   harbours facilitated access to her Ægean coasts, and the
   numerous outlying islands were available as stations or as
   places of refuge. Greece, therefore, was favourably placed for
   entering into commercial intercourse with the more highly
   civilised peoples who dwelt on the opposite coasts of Asia
   Minor. The colonists and voyagers of Eastern Ionia not only
   supplied their Achæan and Pelasgian kinsmen with foreign
   commodities and merchandise, but they also imparted to them
   the myths, the poetry, the sciences, and the arts of their
   native country. Indeed, the geographical configuration of
   Greece points towards the east, whence she has received her
   first enlightenment. Her peninsulas and outlying islands
   extend in that direction; the harbours on her eastern coasts
   are most commodious, and afford the best shelter; and the
   mountain-surrounded plains there offer the best sites for
   populous cities. … The most distinctive feature of Hellas,
   as far as concerns the relief of the ground, consists in the
   large number of small basins, separated one from the other by
   rocks or mountain ramparts. The features of the ground thus
   favoured the division of the Greek people into a multitude of
   independent republics. Every town had its river, its
   amphitheatre of hills or mountains, its acropolis, its fields,
   pastures, and forests, and nearly all of them had, likewise,
   access to the sea. All the elements required by a free
   community were thus to be found within each of these small
   districts, and the neighbourhood of other towns, equally
   favoured, kept alive perpetual emulation, too frequently
   degenerating into strife and battle. The islands of the Ægean
   Sea, likewise, had constituted themselves into miniature
   republics. Local institutions thus developed themselves
   freely, and even the smallest island of the Archipelago has
   its great representatives in history. But whilst there thus
   exists the greatest diversity, owing to the configuration of
   the ground and the multitude of islands, the sea acts as a
   binding element, washes every coast, and penetrates far
   inland. These gulfs and numerous harbours have made the
   maritime inhabitants of Greece a nation of sailors—amphibiæ,
   as Strabo called them. From the most remote times the passion
   for travel has always been strong amongst them. When the
   inhabitants of a town grew too numerous to support themselves
   upon the produce of their land, they swarmed out like bees,
   explored the coasts of the Mediterranean, and, when they had
   found a site which recalled their native home, they built
   themselves a new city. … The Greeks held the same position
   relatively to the world of the ancients which is occupied at
   the present time by the Anglo-Saxons with reference to the
   entire earth. There exists, indeed, a remarkable analogy
   between Greece, with its archipelago, and the British Islands,
   at the other extremity of the continent. Similar geographical
   advantages have brought about similar results, as far as
   commerce is concerned, and between the Ægean and the British
   seas time and space have effected a sort of harmony."

      E. Reclus,
      The Earth and its Inhabitants: Europe,
      volume 1, pages 36-38.

   "The independence of each city was a doctrine stamped deep on
   the Greek political mind by the very nature of the Greek land.
   How truly this is so is hardly fully understood till we see
   that land with our own eyes. The map may do something; but no
   map can bring home to us the true nature of the Greek land
   till we have stood on a Greek hill-top, on the akropolis of
   Athens or the loftier akropolis of Corinth, and have seen how
   thoroughly the land was a land of valleys cut off by hills, of
   islands and peninsulas cut off by arms of sea, from their
   neighbours on either side.
   Or we might more truly say that, while the hills fenced them
   off from their neighbours, the arms of the sea laid them open
   to their neighbours. Their waters might bring either friends
   or enemies; but they brought both from one wholly distinct and
   isolated piece of land to another. Every island, every valley,
   every promontory, became the seat of a separate city; that is,
   according to Greek notions, the seat of an independent power,
   owning indeed many ties of brotherhood to each of the other
   cities which helped to make up the whole Greek nation, but
   each of which claimed the right of war and peace and separate
   diplomatic intercourse, alike with every other Greek city and
   with powers beyond the bounds of the Greek world. Corinth
   could treat with Athens and Athens with Corinth, and Corinth
   and Athens could each equally treat with the King of the
   Macedonians and with the Great King of Persia. … How close
   the Greek states are to one another, and yet how physically
   distinct they are from one another, it needs, for me at least,
   a journey to Greece fully to take in."

      E. A. Freeman,
      The Practical Bearings of European History
      (Lectures to American Audiences),
      pages 243-244.

GREECE: Ancient inhabitants.
   Tribal divisions.


GREECE: The Heroes and their Age.
   "The period included between the first appearance of the
   Hellenes in Thessaly and the return of the Greeks from Troy,
   is commonly known by the name of the heroic age, or ages. The
   real limits of this period cannot be exactly defined. The date
   of the siege of Troy is only the result of a doubtful
   calculation [ending B. C. 1183, as reckoned by Eratosthenes,
   but fixed at dates ranging from 33 to 63 years later by
   Isocrates, Callimachus and other Greek writers]; and … the
   reader will see that it must be scarcely possible to ascertain
   the precise beginning of the period: but still, so far as its
   traditions admit of anything like a chronological connexion,
   its duration may be estimated at six generations, or about 200
   years [say from some time in the 14th to some time in the 12th
   century before Christ]. … The history of the heroic age is
   the history of the most celebrated persons belonging to this
   class, who, in the language of poetry, are called 'heroes.'
   The term 'hero' is of doubtful origin, though it was clearly a
   title of honour; but, in the poems of Homer, it is applied not
   only to the chiefs, but also to their followers, the freemen
   of lower rank, without, however, being contrasted with any
   other, so as to determine its precise meaning. In later times
   its use was narrowed, and in some degree altered: it was
   restricted to persons, whether of the heroic or of after ages,
   who were believed to be endowed with a superhuman, though not
   a divine, nature, and who were honoured with sacred rites, and
   were imagined to have the power of dispensing good or evil to
   their worshippers; and it was gradually combined with the
   notion of prodigious strength and gigantic stature. Here,
   however, we have only to do with the heroes as men. The
   history of their age is filled with their wars, expeditions,
   and adventures, and this is the great mine from which the
   materials of the Greek poetry were almost entirely drawn."

      C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 5 (volume 1).

   The legendary heroes whose exploits and adventures became the
   favorite subjects of Greek tragedy and song were Perseus,
   Hercules, Theseus, the Argonauts, and the heroes of the Siege
   of Troy.

   The Migrations of the Hellenic tribes in the Peninsula.

   "If there is any point in the annals of Greece at which we can
   draw the line between the days of myth and legend and the
   beginnings of authentic history, it is at the moment of the
   great migrations. Just as the irruption of the Teutonic tribes
   into the Roman empire in the 5th century after Christ marks
   the commencement of an entirely new era in modern Europe, so
   does the invasion of Southern and Central Greece by the
   Dorians, and the other tribes whom they set in motion, form
   the first landmark in a new period of Hellenic history. Before
   these migrations we are still in an atmosphere which we cannot
   recognize as that of the historical Greece that we know. The
   states have different boundaries, some of the most famous
   cities have not yet been founded, tribes who are destined to
   vanish occupy prominent places in the land, royal houses of a
   foreign stock are established everywhere, the distinction
   between Hellene and Barbarian is yet unknown. We cannot
   realize a Greece where Athens is not yet counted as a great
   city, while Mycenae is a seat of empire; where the Achaian
   element is everywhere predominant, and the Dorian element is
   as yet unknown. When, however, the migrations are ended, we at
   once find ourselves in a land which we recognize as the Greece
   of history. The tribes have settled into the districts which
   are to be their permanent abodes, and have assumed their
   distinctive characters. … The original impetus which set the
   Greek tribes in motion came from the north, and the whole
   movement rolled southward and eastward. It started with the
   invasion of the valley of the Peneus by the Thessalians, a
   warlike but hitherto obscure tribe, who had dwelt about Dodona
   in the uplands of Epirus. They crossed the passes of Pindus,
   and flooded down into the great plain to which they were to
   give their name. The tribes which had previously held it were
   either crushed and enslaved, or pushed forward into Central
   Greece by the wave of invasion. Two of the displaced races
   found new homes for themselves by conquest. The Arnaeans, who
   had dwelt in the southern lowlands along the courses of
   Apidanus and Enipeus, came through Thermopylae, pushed the
   Locriams aside to right and left, and descended into the
   valley of the Cephissus, where they subdued the Minyae of
   Orchomenus [see MINYI], and then, passing south, utterly
   expelled the Cadmeians of Thebes. The plain country which they
   had conquered received a single name. Boeotia became the
   common title of the basins of the Cephissus and the Asopus,
   which had previously been in the hands of distinct races. Two
   generations later the Boeotians endeavoured to cross
   Cithaeron, and add Attica to their conquests; but their king
   Xanthus fell in single combat with Melanthus, who fought in
   behalf of Athens, and his host gave up the enterprise. In
   their new country the Boeotians retained their national unity
   under the form of a league, in which no one city had authority
   over another, though in process of time Thebes grew so much
   greater than her neighbours that she exercised a marked
   preponderance over the other thirteen members of the
   confederation. Orchomenus, whose Minyan inhabitants had been
   subdued but not exterminated by the invaders, remained
   dependent on the league without being
   at first amalgamated with it.
   A second tribe who were expelled by the irruption of the
   Thessalians were the Dorians, a race whose name is hardly
   heard in Homer, and whose early history had been obscure and
   insignificant. They had till now dwelt along the western slope
   of Pindus. Swept on by the invaders, they crossed Mount
   Othrys, and dwelt for a time in the valley of the Spercheius
   and on the shoulders of Oeta. But the land was too narrow for
   them, and, after a generation had passed, the bulk of the
   nation moved southward to seek a wider home, while a small
   fraction only remained in the valleys of Oeta. Legends tell us
   that their first advance was made by the Isthmus of Corinth,
   and was repulsed by the allied states of Peloponnesus, Hyllus
   the Dorian leader having fallen in the fight by the hand of
   Echemus, King of Tegea. But the grandsons of Hyllus resumed
   his enterprise, and met with greater success. Their invasion
   was made, as we are told, in conjunction with their neighbours
   the Aetolians, and took the Aetolian port of Naupactus as its
   base. Pushing across the narrow strait at the mouth of the
   Corinthian Gulf, the allied hordes landed in Peloponnesus, and
   forced their way down the level country on its western coast,
   then the land of the Epeians, but afterwards to be known as
   Elis and Pisatis. This the Aetolians took as their share,
   while the Dorians pressed further south and east, and
   successively conquered Messenia, Laconia, and Argolis,
   destroying the Cauconian kingdom of Pylos and the Achaian
   states of Sparta and Argos. There can be little doubt that the
   legends of the Dorians pressed into a single generation the
   conquests of a long series of years. … It is highly probable
   that Messenia was the first seized of the three regions, and
   Argos the latest … but of the details or dates of the Dorian
   conquests we know absolutely nothing. Of the tribes whom the
   Dorians supplanted, some remained in the land as subjects to
   their newly found masters, while others took ship and fled
   over sea. The stoutest-hearted of the Achaians of Argolis,
   under Tisamenus, a grandson of Agamemnon, retired northward
   when the contest became hopeless, and threw themselves on the
   coast cities of the Corinthian Gulf, where up to this time the
   Ionic tribe of the Aegialeans had dwelt. The Ionians were
   worsted, and fled for refuge to their kindred in Attica, while
   the conquerors created a new Achaia between the Arcadian
   Mountains and the sea, and dwelt in the twelve cities which
   their predecessors had built. The rugged mountains of Arcadia
   were the only part of Peloponnesus which were to escape a
   change of masters resulting from the Dorian invasion. A
   generation after the fall of Argos, new war-bands thirsting
   for land pushed on to the north and west, led by descendants
   of Temenus. The Ionic towns of Sicyon and Phlius, Epidaurus
   and Troezen, all fell before them. Even the inaccessible
   Acropolis which protected the Aeolian settlement of Corinth
   could not preserve it from the hands of the enterprising
   Aletes. Nor was it long before the conquerors pressed on from
   Corinth beyond the isthmus, and attacked Attica. Foiled in
   their endeavour to subdue the land, they at least succeeded in
   tearing from it its western districts, where the town of
   Megara was made the capital of a new Dorian state, and served
   for many generations to curb the power of Athens. From
   Epidaurus a short voyage of fifteen miles took the Dorians to
   Aegina, where they formed a settlement which, first as a
   vassal to Epidaurus, and then as an independent community,
   enjoyed a high degree of commercial prosperity. It is not the
   least curious feature of the Dorian invasion that the leaders
   of the victorious tribe, who, like most other royal houses,
   claimed to descend from the gods and boasted that Heracles was
   their ancestor, should have asserted that they were not
   Dorians by race, but Achaians. Whether the rude northern
   invaders were in truth guided by princes of a different blood
   and higher civilization than themselves, it is impossible to
   say. … In all probability the Dorian invasion was to a
   considerable extent a check in the history of the development
   of Greek civilization, a supplanting of a richer and more
   cultured by a poorer and wilder race. The ruins of the
   prehistoric cities, which were supplanted by new Dorian
   foundations, point to a state of wealth to which the country
   did not again attain for many generations. On the other hand,
   the invasion brought about an increase in vigour and moral
   earnestness. The Dorians throughout their history were the
   sturdiest and most manly of the Greeks. The god to whose
   worship they were especially devoted was Apollo, the purest,
   the noblest, the most Hellenic member of the Olympian family.
   By their peculiar reverence for this noble conception of
   divinity, the Dorians marked themselves out as the most moral
   of the Greeks."

      C. W. C. Oman,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 5.

      ALSO IN:
      M. Duncker,
      History of Greece,
      book 2 (volume 1).

      C. O. Müller,
      History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
      introduction, and book 1, chapters 1-5.

      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapters 3-8 (volume 2).

      See, also, DORIANS AND IONIANS;
      and BŒOTIA.

   The Migrations to Asia Minor and the Islands of the Ægean.
   Æolian, Ionian and Dorian colonies.


   Mycenæ and its kings.
   The unburied memorials.

   "Thucydides says that before the Dorian conquest, the date of
   which is traditionally fixed at B. C. 1104, Mycenae was the
   only city whence ruled a wealthy race of kings. Archaeology
   produces the bodies of kings ruling at Mycenae about the
   twelfth century and spreads their wealth under our eyes.
   Thucydides says that this wealth was brought in the form of
   gold from Phrygia by the founder of the line, Pelops.
   Archaeology tells us that the gold found at Mycenae may very
   probably have come from the opposite coast of Asia Minor which
   abounded in gold; and further that the patterns impressed on
   the gold work at Mycenae bear a very marked resemblance to the
   decorative patterns found on graves in Phrygia. Thucydides
   tells us that though Mycenae was small, yet its rulers had the
   hegemony over a great part of Greece. Archæology shews us that
   the kings of Mycenae were wealthy and important quite out of
   proportion to the small city which they ruled, and that the
   civilisation which centred at Mycenae spread over south Greece
   and the Aegean, and lasted for some centuries at least. It
   seems to me that the simplest way of meeting the facts of the
   case is to suppose that we have recovered at Mycenae the
   graves of the Pelopid race of monarchs. It will not of course
   do to go too far. … It would be too much to suppose that we
   have recovered the bodies of the Agamemnon who seems in the
   Iliad to be as familiar to us as Caesar or Alexander, or of
   his father Atreus, or of his charioteer and the rest.
   We cannot of course prove the Iliad to be history; and if we
   could, the world would be poorer than before. But we can
   insist upon it that the legends of heroic Greece have more of
   the historic element in them than anyone supposed a few years
   ago. … Assuming then that we may fairly class the Pelopidae
   as Achaean, and may regard the remains at Mycenae as
   characteristic of the Achaean civilisation of Greece, is it
   possible to trace with bolder hand the history of Achaean
   Greece? Certainly we gain assistance in our endeavour to
   realize what the pre-Dorian state of Peloponnesus was like. We
   secure a hold upon history which is thoroughly objective,
   while all the history which before existed was so vague and
   imaginative that the clear mind of Grote refused to rely upon
   it at all. But the precise dates are more than we can venture
   to lay down, in the present condition of our knowledge. …
   The Achaean civilisation was contemporary with the eighteenth
   Egyptian dynasty (B. C. 1700-1400). It lasted during the
   invasions of Egypt from the north (1300-1100). When it ceased
   we cannot say with certainty. There is every historical
   probability that it was brought to a violent end in the Dorian
   invasion. The traditional date of that invasion is B. C. 1104.
   But it is obvious that this date cannot be relied upon."

      P. Gardner,
      New Chapters in Greek History,
      chapters 2-3.

      ALSO IN:
      R. Schliemann,

      C. Schuchhardt,
      Schliemann's Excavations,
      chapter 4.

   Ancient political and geographical divisions.

   "Greece was not a single country. … It was broken up into
   little districts, each with its own government. Any little
   city might be a complete state in itself, and independent of
   its neighbours. It might possess only a few miles of land and
   a few hundred inhabitants, and yet have its own laws, its own
   government, and its own army. … In a space smaller than an
   English county there might be several independent cities,
   sometimes at war, sometimes at peace with one another.
   Therefore when we say that the west coast of Asia Minor was
   part of Greece, we do not mean that this coast-land and
   European Greece were under one law and one government, for
   both were broken up into a number of little independent
   States: but we mean that the people who lived on the west
   coast of Asia Minor were just as much Greeks as the people who
   lived in European Greece. They spoke the same language, and
   had much the same customs, and they called one another
   Hellenes, in contrast to all other nations of the world, whom
   they called barbarians … , that is, 'the unintelligible
   folk,' because they could not understand their tongue."

      C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Greece (History Primers),
      chapter 1.

   "The nature of the country had … a powerful effect on the
   development of Greek politics. The whole land was broken up by
   mountains into a number of valleys more or less isolated;
   there was no central point from which a powerful monarch could
   control it. Hence Greece was, above all other countries, the
   home of independence and freedom. Each valley, and even the
   various hamlets of a valley, felt themselves possessed of a
   separate life, which they were jealous to preserve."

      E. Abbott,
      History of Greece,
      part 1, chapter 1.

      and THESSALY.

   Political evolution of the leading States.
   Variety in the forms of Government.
   Rise of democracy at Athens.

   "The Hellenes followed no common political aim. …
   Independent and self-centred, they created, in a constant
   struggle of citizen with citizen and state with state, the
   groundwork of those forms of government which have been
   established in the world at large. We see monarchy,
   aristocracy, democracy, rising side by side and one after
   another, the changes being regulated in each community by its
   past experience and its special interests in the immediate
   present. These forms of government did not appear in their
   normal simplicity or in conformity with a distinct ideal, but
   under the modifications necessary to give them vitality. An
   example of this is Lakedæmon. If one of the families of the
   Heracleidæ [the two royal families-see SPARTA: THE
   CONSTITUTION] aimed at a tyranny, whilst another entered into
   relations with the native and subject population, fatal to the
   prerogatives of the conquerors, we can understand that in the
   third case, that, of the Spartan community, the aristocratic
   principle was maintained with the greatest strictness.
   Independently of this, the divisions of the Lakedæmonian
   monarchy between two lines, neither of which was to have
   precedence, was intended to guard against the repetition in
   Sparta of that which had happened in Argos. Above all, the
   members of the Gerusia, in which the two kings had only equal
   rights with the rest, held a position which would have been
   unattainable to the elders of the Homeric age. But even the
   Gerusia was not independent. There existed in addition to it a
   general assembly, which, whilst very aristocratic as regards
   the native and subject population, assumed a democratic aspect
   in contrast with the king and the elders. The internal life of
   the Spartan constitution depended upon the relations between
   the Gerusia and the aristocratic demos. … The Spartan
   aristocracy dominated the Peloponnesus. But the constitution
   contained a democratic clement working through the Ephors, by
   means of which the conduct of affairs might be concentrated in
   a succession of powerful hands. Alongside of this system, the
   purely aristocratic constitutions, which were without such a
   centre, could nowhere hold their ground. The Bacchiadæ in
   Corinth, two hundred in number, with a prytanis at their head,
   and inter-marrying only among themselves, were one of the most
   distinguished of these families. They were deprived of their
   exclusive supremacy by Kypselus, a man of humble birth on his
   father's side, but connected with the Bacchiadæ through his
   mother. … As the Kypselidæ rose in Corinth, the metropolis
   of the colonies towards the west, so in the corresponding
   eastern metropolis, Miletus, Thrasybulus raised himself from
   the dignity of prytanis to that of tyrant; in Ephesus,
   Pythagoras rose to power, and overthrew the Basilidæ; in
   Samos, Polycrates, who was master also of the Kyklades, and of
   whom it is recorded that he confiscated the property of the
   citizens and then made them a present of it again. By
   concentrating the forces of their several communities the
   tyrants obtained the means of surrounding themselves with a
   certain splendor, and above all of liberally encouraging
   poetry and art.
   To these Polycrates opened his citadel, and in it we find
   Anacreon and Ibycus; Kypselus dedicated a famous statue to
   Zeus, at Olympia. The school of art at Sikyon was without a
   rival, and at the court of Periander were gathered the seven
   sages—men in whom a distinguished political position was
   combined with the prudential wisdom derived from the
   experience of life. This is the epoch of the legislator of
   Athens, Solon, who more than the rest has attracted to himself
   the notice of posterity.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

   He is the founder of the Athenian democracy. … His proverb
   'Nothing in excess' indicates his character. He was a man who
   knew exactly what the time has a right to call for, and who
   utilized existing complications to bring about the needful
   changes. It is impossible adequately to express what he was to
   the people of Athens, and what services he rendered them. That
   removal of their pecuniary burdens, the seisachtheia, made
   life for the first time endurable to the humbler classes.


   Solon cannot be said to have introduced democracy, but, in
   making the share of the upper classes in the government
   dependent upon the good pleasure of the community at large, he
   laid its foundations. The people were invested by him with
   attributes which they afterwards endeavored to extend. …
   Solon himself lived long enough to see the order which he
   established serve as the basis of the tyranny which he wished
   to avoid; it was the Four Hundred themselves who lent a hand
   to the change. The radical cause of failure was that the
   democratic element was too feebly constituted to control or to
   repress the violence of the families. To elevate the democracy
   into a true power in the state other events were necessary,
   which not only rendered possible, but actually brought about,
   its further development. The conflicts of the principal
   families, hushed for a moment, were revived under the eyes of
   Solon himself with redoubled violence. The Alemæonidæ
   [banished about 595 B. C.—see ATHENS: B. C. 612-595] were
   recalled, and Æthelred around them a party consisting mainly
   of the inhabitants of the seacoast, who, favored by trade, had
   the money in their hands; the genuine aristocrats, described
   as the inhabitants of the plains, who were in possession of
   the fruitful soil, were in perpetual antagonism to the
   Alemæonidæ; and, whilst these two parties were bickering, a
   third was formed from the inhabitants of the mountain
   districts, inferior to the two others in wealth, but of
   superior weight to either in the popular assemblies. At its
   head stood Peisistratus, a man distinguished by warlike
   exploits, and at an earlier date a friend of Solon. It was
   because his adherents did not feel themselves strong enough to
   protect their leader that they were induced to vote him a
   body-guard chosen from their own ranks. … As soon, however,
   as the first two parties combined, the third was at a
   disadvantage, so that after some time sentence of banishment
   was passed upon Peisistratus. … Peisistratus … found means
   to gather around him a troop of brave mercenaries, with whom,
   and with the support of his old adherents, he then invaded
   Attica. His opponents made but a feeble resistance, and he
   became without much trouble master both of the city and of the

      See ATHENS: B. C. 560-510.

   He thus attained to power; it is true, with the approbation of
   the people, but nevertheless by armed force. … We have
   almost to stretch a point in order to call Peisistratus a
   tyrant—a word which carries with it the invidious sense of a
   selfish exercise of power. No authority could have been more
   rightly placed than his; it combined Athenian with
   Panhellenist tendencies. But for him Athens would not have
   been what she afterwards became to the world. …
   Nevertheless, it must be admitted that Peisistratus governed
   Athens absolutely, and even took steps to establish a
   permanent tyranny. He did, in fact, succeed in leaving the
   power he possessed to his sons, Hippias and Hipparchus. … Of
   the two brothers it was the one who had rendered most service
   to culture, Hipparchus, who was murdered at the festival of
   the Panathenæa. It was an act of revenge for a personal
   insult. … In his dread lest he should be visited by a
   similar doom, Hippias actually became an odious tyrant and
   excited universal discontent. One effect, however, of the loss
   of stability which the authority of the dominant family
   experienced was that the leading exiles ejected by
   Peisistratus combined in the enterprise which was a necessary
   condition of their return, the overthrow of Hippias. The
   Alcmæonidæ took the principal part. … The revolution to
   which this opened the way could, it might seem, have but one
   result, the establishment of an oligarchical government. …
   But the matter had a very different issue," resulting in the
   constitution of Cleisthenes and the establishment of democracy
   at Athens, despite the hostile opposition and interference of

      L. von Ranke,
      Universal History:
      The oldest Historical Group of Nations and the Greeks,
      chapter 5.

      See, also,
      ATHENS: B. C. 510-507,
      and 509-506.

GREECE: B. C. 752.
   The Archonship at Athens thrown open to the whole body of the


GREECE: B. C. 624.
   The Draconian legislation at Athens.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 624.

GREECE: B. C. 610-600.
   War of Athens and Megara for Salamis.
   Spartan Arbitration.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 610-586.

GREECE: B. C. 595-586.
   The Cirrhæan or first Sacred War.

      See ATHENS: B.C. 610-586; and DELPHI.

GREECE: B. C. 500-493.
   Rising of the Ionians of Asia Minor against the Persians.
   Aid rendered to them by the Athenians.
   Provocation to Darius.

   The Ionic Greek cities, or states, of Asia Minor, first
   subjugated by Crœsus, King of Lydia, in the sixth century B.
   C., were swallowed up, in the same century, with all other
   parts of the dominion of Crœsus, in the conquests of Cyrus,
   and formed part of the great Persian Empire, to the
   sovereignty of which Cambyses and Darius succeeded. In the
   reign of Darius there occurred a revolt of the Ionians (about
   502 B. C.), led by the city of Miletus, under the influence of
   its governor, Aristagoras. Aristagoras, coming over to Greece
   in person, sought aid against the Persians, first at Sparta,
   where it was denied to him, and then, with better success, at
   Athens. Presenting himself to the citizens, just after they
   had expelled the Pisistratidæ, Aristagoras said to them "that
   the Milesians were colonists from Athens, and that it was just
   that the Athenians, being so mighty, should deliver them from
   And because his need was great, there was nothing that he did
   not promise, till at the last he persuaded them. For it is
   easier, it seems, to deceive a multitude than to deceive one
   man. Cleomenes the Spartan, being but one man, Aristagoras
   could not deceive; but he brought over to his purpose the
   people of Athens, being thirty thousand. So the Athenians,
   being persuaded, made a decree to send twenty ships to help
   the men of Ionia, and appointed one Melanthius, a man of
   reputation among them, to be captain. These ships were the
   beginning of trouble both to the Greeks and the barbarians.
   … When the twenty ships of the Athenians were arrived, and
   with them five ships of the Eretrians, which came, not for any
   love of the Athenians, but because the Milesians had helped
   them in the old time against the men of Chalcis, Aristagoras
   sent an army against Sardis, but he himself abode in Miletus.
   This army, crossing Mount Tmolus, took the city of Sardis
   without any hindrance; but the citadel they took not, for
   Artaphernes held it with a great force of soldiers. But though
   they took the city they had not the plunder of it, and for
   this reason. The houses in Sardis were for the most part built
   of reeds, and such as were built of bricks had their roofs of
   reeds; and when a certain soldier set fire to one of these
   houses, the fire ran quickly from house to house till the
   whole city was consumed. And while the city was burning, such
   Lydians and Persians as were in it, seeing they were cut off
   from escape (for the fire was in an the outskirts of the
   city), gathered together in haste to the market-place. Through
   this market-place flows the river Pactolus, which comes down
   from Mount Tmolus, having gold in its sands, and when it has
   passed out of the city it flows into the Hermus, which flows
   into the sea. Here then the Lydians and Persians were gathered
   together, being constrained to defend themselves. And when the
   men of Ionia saw their enemies how many they were, and that
   these were preparing to give battle, they were stricken with
   fear, and fled out of the city to Mount Tmolus, and thence,
   when it was night, they went back to the sea. In this manner
   was burnt the city of Sardis, and in it the great temple of
   the goddess Cybele, the burning of which temple was the cause,
   as said the Persians, for which afterwards they burnt the
   temples in Greece. Not long after came a host of Persians from
   beyond the river Halys; and when they found that the men of
   Ionia had departed from Sardis, they followed hard upon their
   track, and came up with them at Ephesus. And when the battle
   was joined, the men of Ionia fled before them. Many indeed
   were slain, and such as escaped were scattered, every man to
   his own city. After this the ships of the Athenians departed,
   and would not help the men of Ionia any more, though
   Aristagoras besought them to stay. Nevertheless the Ionians
   ceased not from making preparations of war against the King,
   making to themselves allies, some by force and some by
   persuasion, as the cities of the Hellespont and many of the
   Carians and the island of Cyprus. For all Cyprus, save Amathus
   only, revolted from the King under Onesilus, brother of King
   Gorgus. When King Darius heard that Sardis had been taken and
   burned with fire by the Ionians and the Athenians, with
   Aristagoras for leader, at the first he took no heed of the
   Ionians, as knowing that they would surely suffer for their
   deed, but he asked, 'Who are these Athenians?' And when they
   told him he took a bow and shot an arrow into the air, saying,
   'O Zeus, grant that I may avenge myself on these Athenians.'
   And he commanded his servant that every day, when his dinner
   was served, he should say three times, 'Master, remember the
   Athenians.' … Meanwhile the Persians took not a few cities
   of the Ionians and Æolians. But while they were busy about
   these, the Carians revolted from the King; whereupon the
   captains of the Persians led their army into Caria, and the
   men of Caria came out to meet them; and they met them at a
   certain place which is called the White Pillars, near to the
   river Mæander. Then there were many counsels among the
   Carians, whereof the best was this, that they should cross the
   river and so contend with the Persians, having the river
   behind them, that so there being no escape for them if they
   fled, they might surpass themselves in courage. But this
   counsel did not prevail. Nevertheless, when the Persians had
   crossed the Meander, the Carians fought against them, and the
   battle was exceeding long and fierce. But at the last the
   Carians were vanquished, being overborne by numbers, so that
   there fell of them ten thousand. And when they that
   escaped—for many had fled to Labranda, where there is a great
   temple of Zeus and a grove of plane trees—were doubting
   whether they should yield themselves to the King or depart
   altogether from Asia, there came to their help the men of
   Miletus with their allies. Thereupon the Carians, putting away
   their doubts altogether, fought with the Persians a second
   time, and were vanquished yet more grievously than before. But
   on this day the men of Miletus suffered the chief damage. And
   the Carians fought with the Persians yet again a third time;
   for, hearing that these were about to attack their cities one
   by one, they laid an ambush for them on the road to Pedasus.
   And the Persians, marching by night, fell into the ambush, and
   were utterly destroyed, they and their captains. After these
   things, Aristagoras, seeing the power of the Persians, and
   having no more any hope to prevail over them—and indeed, for
   all that he had brought about so much trouble, he was of a
   poor spirit—called together his friends and said to them, 'We
   must needs have some place of refuge, if we be driven out of
   Miletus. Shall we therefore go to Sardinia, or to Myrcinus on
   the river Strymon; which King Darius gave to Histiæus?' To
   this Hecateus, the writer of chronicles, made answer, 'Let
   Aristagoras build a fort in Leros (this Leros is an island
   thirty miles distant from Miletus) and dwell there quietly, if
   he be driven from Miletus. And hereafter he can come from
   Leros and set himself up again in Miletus.' But Aristagoras
   went to Myrcinus, and not long afterwards was slain while he
   besieged a certain city of the Thracians."

      The Story of the Persian War
      (version of A. J. Church, chapter 2).

      See, also,
      PERSIA: B. C. 521-493;
      and ATHENS: B. C. 501-490.

GREECE: B. C. 496.
   War of Sparta with Argos.
   Overwhelming reverse of the Argives.

      See ARGOS: B. C. 496-421.

GREECE: B. C. 492-491.
   Wrath of the Persian king against Athens.
   Failure of his first expedition of invasion.
   Submission of 'Medizing' Greek states.
   Coercion of Ægina.
   Enforced union of Hellas.
   Headship of Sparta recognized.


   The assistance given by Athens to the Ionian revolt stirred
   the wrath of the Persian monarch very deeply, and when he had
   put down the rebellion he prepared to chastise the audacious
   and insolent Greeks. "A great fleet started from the
   Hellespont, with orders to sail round the peninsula of Mt.
   Athos to the Gulf of Therma, while Mardonius advanced by land.
   His march was so harassed by the Thracians that when he had
   effected the conquest of Macedonia his force was too weak for
   any further attempt. The fleet was overtaken by a storm off
   Mt. Athos, on whose rocks 300 ships were dashed to pieces, and
   20,000 men perished. Mardonius returned in disgrace to Asia
   with the remnant of his fleet and army. This failure only
   added fury to the resolution of Darius. While preparing all
   the resources of his empire for a second expedition, he sent
   round heralds to the chief cities of Greece, to demand the
   tribute of earth and water as signs of his being their
   rightful lord. Most of them submitted: Athens and Sparta alone
   ventured on defiance. Both treated the demand as an outrage
   which annulled the sanctity of the herald's person. At Athens
   the envoy was plunged into the loathsome Barathrum, a pit into
   which the most odious public criminals were cast. At Sparta
   the herald was hurled into a well, and bidden to seek his
   earth and water there. The submission of Ægina, the chief
   maritime state of Greece, and the great enemy of Athens,
   entailed the most important results. The act was denounced by
   Athens as treason against Greece, and the design was imputed
   to Ægina of calling in the Persians to secure vengeance on her
   rival. The Athenians made a formal complaint to Sparta against
   the 'Medism' of the Æginetans; a charge which is henceforth
   often repeated both against individuals and states. The
   Spartans had recently concluded a successful war with Argos,
   the only power that could dispute her supremacy in
   Peloponnesus; and now this appeal from Athens, the second city
   of Greece, at once recognized and established Sparta as the
   leading Hellenic state. In that character, her king Cleomenes
   undertook to punish the Medizing party in Ægina 'for the
   common good of Greece'; but he was met by proofs of the
   intrigues of his colleague Demaratus in their favour. …
   Cleomenes obtained his deposition on a charge of illegitimacy,
   and a public insult from his successor Leotychides drove
   Demaratus from Sparta. Hotly pursued as a 'Medist,' he
   effected his escape to Darius, whose designs against Athens
   and Sparta were now stimulated by the councils of their exiled
   sovereigns, Hippias and Demaratus. Meanwhile, Cleomenes and
   his new colleague returned to Ægina, which no longer resisted,
   and having seized ten of her leading citizens, placed them as
   hostages in the hands of the Athenians. Ægina was thus
   effectually disabled from throwing the weight of her fleet
   into the scale of Persia: Athens and Sparta, suspending their
   political jealousies, were united when their disunion would
   have been fatal; their conjunction drew after them most of the
   lesser states: and so the Greeks stood forth for the first
   time as a nation prepared to act in unison, under the
   leadership of Sparta (B. C. 491). That city retained her proud
   position till it was forfeited by the misconduct of her

      P. Smith,
      History of the World: Ancient,
      chapter 13 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      G. W. Cox,
      The Greeks and the Persians,
      chapter 6.

      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 36 (volume 4.)

      See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 501-490.

GREECE: B. C. 490.
   The Persian Wars: Marathon.

   The second and greater expedition launched by Darius against
   the Greeks sailed from the Cilician coast in the summer of the
   year 490 B. C. It was under the command of two generals,—a
   Mede, named Datis, and the king's nephew, Artaphernes. It made
   the passage safely, destroying Naxos on the way, but sparing
   the sacred island and temple of Delos. Its landing was on the
   shores of Eubœa, where the city of Eretria was easily taken,
   its inhabitants dragged into slavery, and the first act of
   Persian vengeance accomplished. The expedition then sailed to
   the coast of Attica and came to land on the plain of Marathon,
   which spreads along the bay of that name. "Marathon, situated
   near to a bay on the eastern coast of Attica, and in a
   direction E. N. E. from Athens, is divided by the high ridge
   of Mount Pentelikus from the city, with which it communicated
   by two roads, one to the north, another to the south of that
   mountain. Of these two roads, the northern, at once the
   shortest and the most difficult, is 22 miles in length. …
   [The plain] 'is in length about six miles, in breadth never
   less than about one mile and a half. Two marshes bound the
   extremities of the plain; the southern is not very large and
   is almost dry at the conclusion of the great heats; but the
   northern, which generally covers considerably more than a
   square mile, offers several parts which are at all seasons
   impassable. Both, however, leave a broad, firm sandy beach
   between them and the sea. The uninterrupted flatness of the
   plain is hardly relieved by a single tree; and an amphitheatre
   of rocky hills and rugged mountains separates it from the rest
   of Attica."

      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 36 (volume 4).

   The Athenians waited for no nearer approach of the enemy to
   their city, but met them at their landing-place. They were few
   in number—only 10,000, with 1,000 more from the grateful city
   of Platæa, which Athens had protected against Thebes. They had
   sent to Sparta for aid, but a superstition delayed the march
   of the Spartans and they came the day after the battle. Of all
   the nearer Greeks none came to the help of Athens in that hour
   of extreme need; and so much the greater to her was the glory
   of Marathon. The ten thousand Athenian hoplites and the one
   thousand brave Platæans confronted the great host of Persia,
   of the numbers in which there is no account. Ten generals had
   the right of command on successive days, but Miltiades was
   known to be the superior captain and his colleagues gave place
   to him. "On the morning of the seventeenth day of the month of
   Metagitnion (September 12th), when the supreme command
   according to the original order of succession fell to
   Miltiades, he ordered the army to draw itself up according to
   the ten tribes. … The troops had advanced with perfect
   steadiness across the trenches and palisadings of their camp,
   as they had doubtless already done on previous days. But as
   soon as they had approached the enemy within a distance of
   5,000 feet they changed their march to a double-quick pace,
   which gradually rose to the rapidity of a charge, while at the
   same time they raised the war-cry with a loud voice.
   When the Persians saw these men rushing down from the heights,
   they thought they beheld madmen: they quickly placed
   themselves in order of battle, but before they had time for an
   orderly discharge of arrows the Athenians were upon them,
   ready in their excitement to begin a closer contest, man
   against man in hand-to-hand fight, which is decided by
   personal courage and gymnastic agility, by the momentum of
   heavy-armed warriors, and by the use of lance and sword. Thus
   the well-managed and bold attack of the Athenians had
   succeeded in bringing into play the whole capability of
   victory which belonged to the Athenians. Yet the result was
   not generally successful. The enemy's centre stood firm. …
   But meanwhile both wings had thrown themselves upon the enemy;
   and after they had effected a victorious advance, the one on
   the way to Rhamnus, the other towards the coast, Miltiades …
   issued orders at the right moment for the wings to return from
   the pursuit, and to make a combined attack upon the Persian
   centre in its rear. Hereupon the rout speedily became general,
   and in their flight the troubles of the Persians increased;
   … they were driven into the morasses and there slain in

      E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).

   The Athenian dead, when gathered for the solemn obsequies,
   numbered 192; the loss of the Persians was estimated by
   Herodotus at 6,400.

      book 6.

      ALSO IN:
      E. S. Creasy,
      Fifteen Decisive Battles,
      chapter 1.

      C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 14 (volume 2).

      G. W. Cox,
      The Greeks and Persians,
      chapter 6.

      Sir E. Bulwer Lytton,
      Athens: Its Rise and Fall,
      book 2, chapter 5.

GREECE: B. C. 489-480.
   The Æginetan War.
   Naval power of Athens created by Themistocles.

      SEE ATHENS: B. C. 489-480.

GREECE: B. C. 481-479.
   Congress at Corinth.
   Hellenic union against Persia.
   Headship of Sparta.

   "When it was known in Greece that Xerxes was on his march into
   Europe, it became necessary to take measures for the defence
   of the country. At the instigation of the Athenians, the
   Spartans, as the acknowledged leaders of Hellas and head of
   the Peloponnesian confederacy, called on those cities which
   had resolved to uphold the independence of their country to
   send plenipotentiaries to a congress at the Isthmus of
   Corinth. When the envoys assembled, a kind of Hellenic
   alliance was formed under the presidency of Sparta, and its
   unity was confirmed by an oath, binding the members to visit
   with severe penalties those Greeks who, without compulsion,
   had given earth and water to the envoys of Xerxes. This
   alliance was the nearest approach to a Hellenic union ever
   seen in Greece; but though it comprised most of the
   inhabitants of the Peloponnesus, except Argos and Achæa, the
   Megarians, Athenians, and two cities of Bœotia, Thespiæ and
   Platæa, were the only patriots north of the Isthmus. Others,
   who would willingly have been on that side, such as the common
   people of Thessaly, the Phocians and Locrians, were compelled
   by the force of circumstances to 'medize.' From the time at
   which it met in the autumn or summer of 481 to the autumn of
   480 B. C., the congress at the Isthmus directed the military
   affairs of Greece. It fixed the plan of operations. Spies were
   sent to Sardis to ascertain the extent of the forces of
   Xerxes; envoys visited Argos, Crete, Corcyra, and Syracuse, in
   the hope, which proved vain, of obtaining assistance in the
   impending struggle. As soon as Xerxes was known to be in
   Europe, an army of 10,000 men was sent to hold the pass of
   Tempe, but afterwards, on the advice of Alexander of Macedon,
   this barrier was abandoned; and it was finally resolved to
   await the approaching forces at Thermopylæ and Artemisium. The
   supreme authority, both by land and sea, was in the hands of
   the Spartans; they were the natural leaders of any army which
   the Greeks could put into the field, and the allies refused to
   follow unless the ships also were under their charge. … When
   hostilities were suspended, the congress re-appears, and the
   Greeks once more meet at the Isthmus to apportion the spoil
   and adjudge the prizes of valour. In the next year we hear of
   no common plan of operations, the fleet and army seeming to
   act independently of each other; yet we observe that the
   chiefs of the medizing Thebans were taken to the Isthmus
   (Corinth) to be tried, after the battle of Platæa. It appears
   then that, under the stress of the great Persian invasion, the
   Greeks were brought into an alliance or confederation; and for
   the two years from midsummer 481 to midsummer 479 a congress
   continued to meet, with more or less interruption, at the
   Isthmus, consisting of plenipotentiaries from the various
   cities. This congress directed the affairs of the nation, so
   far as they were in any way connected with the Persian
   invasion. When the Barbarians were finally defeated, and there
   was no longer any alarm from that source, the congress seems
   to have discontinued its meetings. But the alliance remained;
   the cities continued to act in common, at any rate, so far as
   naval operations were concerned, and Sparta was still the
   leading power."

      E. Abbott,
      Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens,
      chapter 3.

      ALSO IN:
      C. O. Müller,
      History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
      volume 1, appendix 4.

GREECE: B. C. 480.
   The Persian War: Thermopylæ.

   "Now when tidings of the battle that had been fought at
   Marathon [B. C. 490] reached the ears of King Darius, the son
   of Hystaspes, his anger against the Athenians," says
   Herodotus, "which had been already roused by their attack on
   Sardis, waxed still fiercer, and he became more than ever
   eager to lead an army against Greece. Instantly he sent off
   messengers to make proclamation through the several states
   that fresh levies were to be raised, and these at an increased
   rate; while ships, horses, provisions and transports were
   likewise to be furnished. So the men published his commands;
   and now all Asia was in commotion by the space of three
   years." But before his preparations were completed Darius
   died. His son Xerxes, who ascended the Persian throne, was
   cold to the Greek undertaking and required long persuasion
   before he took it up. When he did so, however, his
   preparations were on a scale more stupendous than those of his
   father, and consumed nearly five years. It was not until ten
   years after Marathon that Xerxes led from Sardis a host which,
   Herodotus computes at 1,700,000 men, besides half a million
   more which manned the fleet he had assembled. "Was there a
   nation in all Asia," cries the Greek historian, "which Xerxes
   did not bring with him against Greece? Or was there a river,
   except those of unusual size, which sufficed for his troops to
   drink?" By a bridge of boats at Abydos the army crossed the
   Hellespont, and moved slowly through Thrace, Macedonia and
   Thessaly; while the fleet, moving on the
   coast circuit of the same countries, avoided the perilous
   promontory of Mount Athos by cutting a canal.
   The Greeks had determined at first to make their stand against
   the invaders in Thessaly, at the vale of Tempe; but they found
   the post untenable and were persuaded, instead, to guard the
   narrower Pass of Thermopylæ. It was there that the Persians,
   arriving at Trachis, near the Malian gulf, found themselves
   faced by a small body of Greeks. The spot is thus described by
   Herodotus: "As for the entrance into Greece by Trachis, it is,
   at its narrowest point, about fifty feet wide. This, however,
   is not the place where the passage is most contracted; for it
   is still narrower a little above and a little below
   Thermopylae. At Alpeni, which is lower down than that place,
   it is only wide enough for a single carriage; and up above, at
   the river Phœnix, near the town called Anthela, it is the
   same. West of Thermopylæ rises a lofty and precipitous hill,
   impossible to climb, which runs up into the chain of Œta;
   while to the east the road is shut in by the sea and by
   marshes. In this place are the warm springs, which the natives
   call 'The Cauldrons'; and above them stands an altar sacred to
   Hercules. A wall had once been carried across the opening; and
   in this there had of old times been a gateway. … King Xerxes
   pitched his camp in the region of Malis called Trachinia,
   while on their side the Greeks occupied the straits. These
   straits the Greeks in general call Thermopylæ (the Hot Gates);
   but the natives and those who dwell in the neighbourhood call
   them Pylæ (the Gates). … The Greeks who at this spot awaited
   the coming of Xerxes were the following:—From Sparta, 300
   men-at-arms; from Arcadia, 1,000 Tegeans and Mantineans, 500
   of each people; 120 Orchomenians, from the Arcadian
   Orchomenus; and 1,000 from other cities; from Corinth, 400
   men; from Phlius, 200; and from Mycenæ 80. Such was the number
   from the Peloponnese. There were also present, from Bœotia,
   700 Thespians and 400 Thebans. Besides these troops, the
   Locrians of Opus and the Phocians had obeyed the call of their
   countrymen, and sent, the former all the force they had, the
   latter 1,000 men. … The various nations had each captains of
   their own under whom they served; but the one to whom all
   especially looked up, and who had the command of the entire
   force, was the Lacedæmonian, Leonidas. … The force with
   Leonidas was sent forward by the Spartans in advance of their
   main body, that the sight of them might encourage the allies
   to fight, and hinder them from going over to the Medes, as it
   was likely they might have done had they seen Sparta backward.
   They intended presently, when they had celebrated the Carneian
   festival, which was what now kept them at home, to leave a
   garrison in Sparta, and hasten in full force to join the army.
   The rest of the allies also intended to act similarly; for it
   happened that the Olympic festival fell exactly at this same
   period. None of them looked to see the contest at Thermopylæ
   decided so speedily." For two days Leonidas and his little
   army held the pass against the Persians. Then, there was found
   a traitor, a man of Malis, who betrayed to Xerxes the secret
   of a pathway across the mountains, by which he might steal
   into the rear of the post held by the Greeks. A thousand
   Phocians had been stationed on the mountain to guard this
   path; but they took fright when the Persians came upon them in
   the early dawn, and fled without a blow. When Leonidas learned
   that the way across the mountain was open to the enemy he knew
   that his defense was hopeless, and he ordered his allies to
   retreat while there was yet time. But he and his Spartans
   remained, thinking it "unseemly" to quit the post they had
   been specially sent to guard. The Thespians remained with
   them, and the Thebans—known partisans at heart of the
   Persians—were forced to stay. The latter deserted when the
   enemy approached; the Spartans and the Thespians fought and
   perished to the last man.

      (translated by Rawlinson), book 7.

      ALSO IN:
      E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 3, chapter 1.

      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 40 (volume 4).

      See, also,
      ATHENS: B. C. 480-479.

GREECE: B. C. 480.
   The Persian Wars: Artemisium.

   On the approach of the great invading army and fleet of
   Xerxes, the Greeks resolved to meet the one at the pass of
   Thermopylæ and the other at the northern entrance of the
   Eubœan channel. "The northern side of Eubœa afforded a
   commodious and advantageous station: it was a long beach,
   called, from a temple at its eastern extremity, Artemisium,
   capable of receiving the galleys, if it should be necessary to
   draw them upon the shore, and commanding a view of the open
   sea and the coast of Magnesia, and consequently an opportunity
   of watching the enemy's movements as he advanced towards the
   south; while, on the other hand, its short distance from
   Thermopylæ enabled the fleet to keep up a quick and easy
   communication with the land force."

      C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 15 (volume 1).

   The Persian fleet, after suffering heavily from a destructive
   storm on the Magnesian coast, reached Aphetæ, opposite
   Artemisium, at the mouth of the Pagasæan gulf. Notwithstanding
   its losses, it still vastly outnumbered the armament of the
   Greeks, and feared nothing but the escape of the latter. But,
   in the series of conflicts which ensued, the Greeks were
   generally victorious and proved their superior naval genius.
   They could not, however, afford the heavy losses which they
   sustained, and, upon hearing of the disaster at Thermopylæ and
   the Persian possession of the all-important pass, they deemed it
   necessary to retreat.

      W. Mitford,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 8, section 4 (volume 2).

GREECE: B. C. 480.
   The Persian Wars: Salamis.

   Leonidas and his Spartan band having perished vainly at
   Thermopylæ, in their heroic attempt to hold the pass against
   the host of Xerxes, and the Greek ships at Artemisium having
   vainly beaten their overwhelming enemies, the whole of Greece
   north of the isthmus of Corinth lay completely at the mercy of
   the invader. The Thebans and other false-hearted Greeks joined
   his ranks, and saved their own cities by helping to destroy
   their neighbors. The Platæans, the Thespians and the Athenians
   abandoned their homes in haste, conducted their families, and
   such property as they might snatch away, to the nearer islands
   and to places of refuge in Peloponnesus. The Greeks of
   Peloponnesus rallied in force to the isthmus and began there
   the building of a defensive wall. Their fleet, retiring from
   Artemisium, was drawn together, with some re-enforcements,
   behind the island of Salamis, which stretches across the
   entrance to the bay of Eleusis, off the inner coast of Attica,
   near Athens.
   Meantime the Persians had advanced through Attica, entered the
   deserted city of Athens, taken the Acropolis, which a small
   body of desperate patriots resolved to hold, had slain its
   defenders and burned its temples. Their fleet had also been
   assembled in the bay of Phalerum, which was the more easterly
   of the three harbors of Athens. At Salamis the Greeks were in
   dispute. The Corinthians and the Peloponnesians were bent upon
   falling back with the fleet to the isthmus; the Athenians, the
   Eginetans and the Megarians looked upon all as lost if the
   present combination of the whole naval power of Hellas in the
   narrow strait of Salamis was permitted to be broken up. At
   length Themistocles, the Athenian leader, a man of fertile
   brain and overbearing resolution, determined the question by
   sending a secret message to Xerxes that the Greek ships had
   prepared to escape from him. This brought down the Persian
   fleet upon them at once and left them no chance for retreat.
   Of the memorable fight which ensued (September 20 B. C. 480)
   the following is a part of the description given by Herodotus:
   "Against the Athenians, who held the western extremity of the
   line towards Eleusis, were placed the Phœnicians; against the
   Lacedæmonians, whose station was eastward towards the Piræus,
   the Ionians. Of these last, a few only followed the advice of
   Themistocles, to fight backwardly; the greater number did far
   otherwise. … Far the greater number of the Persian ships
   engaged in this battle were disabled, either by the Athenians
   or by the Eginetans. For as the Greeks fought in order and
   kept their line, while the barbarians were in confusion and
   had no plan in anything that they did, the issue of the battle
   could scarce be other than it was. Yet the Persians fought far
   more bravely here than at Eubœa, and indeed surpassed
   themselves; each did his utmost through fear of Xerxes, for
   each thought that the king's eye was upon himself. … During
   the whole time of the battle Xerxes sat at the base of the
   hill called Ægaleos, over against Salamis; and whenever he saw
   any of his own captains perform any worthy exploit he inquired
   concerning him; and the man's name was taken down by his
   scribes, together with the names of his father and his city.
   … When the rout of the barbarians began, and they sought to
   make their escape to Phalêrum, the Eginetans, awaiting them in
   the channel, performed exploits worthy to be recorded. Through
   the whole of the confused struggle the Athenians employed
   themselves in destroying such ships as either made resistance
   or fled to shore; while the Eginetans dealt with those which
   endeavoured to escape down the straits; so that the Persian
   vessels were no sooner clear of the Athenians than straightway
   they fell into the hands of the Eginetan squadron. … Such of
   the barbarian vessels as escaped from the battle fled to
   Phalêrum, and there sheltered themselves under the protection
   of the land army. … Xerxes, when he saw the extent of his
   loss, began to be afraid lest the Greeks might be counselled
   by the Ionians, or without their advice might determine, to
   sail straight to the Hellespont and break down the bridges
   there; in which case he would be blocked up in Europe and run
   great risk of perishing. He therefore made up his mind to

      (edited and translated by Rawlinson),
      book 8, sections 85—97 (volume 4).

      ALSO IN:
      E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).

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

      W. W. Goodwin,
      The Battle of Salamis
      (Papers of the American School at Athens, volume 1).

GREECE: B. C. 479.
   The Persian Wars: Platæa.

   When Xerxes, after the defeat of his fleet at Salamis, fled
   back to Asia with part of his disordered host, he left his
   lieutenant, Mardonius, with a still formidable army, to repair
   the disaster and accomplish, if possible, the conquest of the
   Greeks. Mardonius retired to Thessaly for the winter, but
   returned to Attica in the spring and drove the Athenians once
   more from their shattered city, which they were endeavoring to
   repair. He made overtures to them which they rejected with
   scorn, and thereupon he destroyed everything in city and
   country which could be destroyed, reducing Athens to ruins and
   Attica to a desert. The Spartans and other Peloponnesians who
   had promised support to the Athenians were slow in coming, but
   they came in strong force at last. Mardonius fell back into
   Bœotia, where he took up a favorable position in a plain on
   the left bank of the Asopus, near Platæa. This was in
   September, B. C. 479. According to Herodotus, he had 300,000
   "barbarian" troops and 50,000 Greek allies. The opposing
   Greeks, who followed him to the Asopus, were 110,000 in
   number. The two armies watched one another for more than ten
   days, unwilling to offer battle because the omens were on both
   sides discouraging. At length the Greeks undertook a change of
   position and Mardonius, mistaking this for a movement of
   retreat, led his Persians on a run to attack them. It was a
   fatal mistake. The Spartans, who bore the brunt of the Persian
   assault, soon convinced the deluded Mardonius that they were
   not in flight, while the Athenians dealt roughly with his
   Theban allies. "The barbarians," says Herodotus, "many times
   seized hold of the Greek spears and brake them; for in
   boldness and warlike spirit the Persians were not a whit
   inferior to the Greeks; but they were without bucklers,
   untrained, and far below the enemy in respect of skill in
   arms. Sometimes singly, sometimes in bodies of ten, now fewer
   and now more in number, they dashed forward upon the Spartan
   ranks, and so perished. … After Mardonius fell, and the
   troops with him, which were the main strength of the army,
   perished, the remainder yielded to the Lacedæmonians and took
   to flight. Their light clothing and want of bucklers were of
   the greatest hurt to them: for they had to contend against men
   heavily armed, while they themselves were without any such
   defence." Artabazus, who was second in command of the
   Persians, and who had 40,000 immediately under him, did not
   strike a blow in the battle, but quitted the field as soon as
   he saw the turn events had taken, and led his men in a retreat
   which had no pause until they reached and crossed the
   Hellespont. Of the remainder of the 300,000 of Mardonius'
   host, only 3,000, according to Herodotus, outlived the battle.
   It was the end of the Persian invasions of Greece.

      (translated by Rawlinson), book 9.

      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 42 (volume 5).

      C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 16 (volume 1).

      G. W. Cox,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1).


   In celebration of the victory an altar to Zeus was erected and
   consecrated by the united Greeks with solemn ceremonies, a
   quintennial festival, called the Feast of Liberty, was
   instituted at Platæa, and the territory of the Platæans was
   declared sacred and inviolable, so long as they should
   maintain the appointed sacrifices and funeral honors to the
   dead. But these agreements did not avail to protect the
   Platæans when the subsequent Peloponnesian War broke out, and
   they stood faithfully among the allies of Athens. "The last
   act of the assembled army was the expedition against Thebes,
   in order, according to the obligation incumbent upon them, to
   take revenge on the most obstinate ally of the national enemy.
   Eleven days after the battle Pausanias appeared before the
   city and demanded the surrender of the party-leaders,
   responsible for the policy of Thebes. Not until the siege had
   lasted twenty days was the surrender obtained. … Timagenidas
   and the other leaders of the Thebans were executed as traitors
   against the nation, by order of Pausanias, after he had
   dismissed the confederate army."

      E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).

GREECE: B. C. 479.
   The Persian Wars: Mycale.

   The same day, in September, B. C. 479, on which the Greeks at
   Platæa destroyed the army of Mardonius, witnessed an almost
   equal victory won by their compatriots of the fleet, on the
   coast of Asia Minor. The Persian fleet, to avoid a battle with
   them, had retreated to Mycale on the narrow strait between the
   island of Samos and the mainland, where a land army of 60,000
   men was stationed at the time. Here they drew their ships on
   shore and surrounded them with a rampart. The Greeks, under
   Leotychides the Lacedæmonian, landed and attacked the whole
   combined force. The Ionians in the Persian army turned against
   their masters and helped to destroy them. The rout was
   complete and only a small remnant escaped to reach Sardis,
   where Xerxes was still lingering.

      (translated by Rawlinson),
      book 9.

      ALSO IN:
      C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 16 (volume 1).

      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 42 (volume 5).

GREECE: B. C. 479-478.
   Athens assumes the protection of Ionia.
   Siege and capture of Sestus.
   Rebuilding and enlargement of Athens and its walls.
   Interference of Sparta foiled by Themistocles.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 479-478.

GREECE: B. C. 478-477.
   Reduction of Byzantium.
   Mad conduct of Pausanias.
   His recall.
   Alienation of the Asiatic Greeks from Sparta.
   Their closer union with Athens.
   Withdrawal of the Spartans from the war.
   Formation of the Delian Confederacy.

   "Sestos had fallen: but Byzantion and the Thrakian Doriskos,
   with Eion on the Strymon and many other places on the northern
   shores of the Egean, were still held by Persian garrisons,
   when, in the year after the battle of Plataiai, Pausanias, as
   commander of the confederate fleet, sailed with 20
   Peloponnesian and 30 Athenian ships to Kypros (Cyprus) and
   thence, having recovered the greater part of the island, to
   Byzantion. The resistance here was as obstinate perhaps as at
   Sestos; but the place was at length reduced, and Sparta stood
   for the moment at the head of a triumphant confederacy. It was
   now in her power to weld the isolated units, which made up the
   Hellenic world, into something like an organised society, and
   to kindle in it something like national life. … But she had
   no statesman capable, like Themistokles, of seizing on a
   golden opportunity, while in her own generals she found her
   greatest enemies." Pausanias "was, it would seem, dazzled by
   Persian wealth and enamoured of Persian pleasures. He had
   roused the indignation of his own people by having his name
   inscribed, as leader of all the Greek forces, on the tripod
   which was to commemorate the victory of Plataiai: and now his
   arrogance and tyranny were to excite at Byzantion a discontent
   and impatience destined to be followed by more serious
   consequences to his country as well as to himself. On the fall
   of Byzantion he sent to the Persian king the prisoners taken
   in the city, and spread the report that they had escaped. He
   forwarded at the same time, it is said, … a letter in which
   he informed Xerxes that he wished to marry his daughter and to
   make him lord of all Hellas." Xerxes opened negotiations with
   him, and "the head of this miserable man was now fairly
   turned. Clad in Persian garb, he aped the privacy of Asiatic
   despots; and when he came forth from his palace it was to make
   a royal progress through Thrace, surrounded by Median and
   Egyptian life guards, and to show his insolence to men who
   were at least his equals. The reports of this significant
   change in the behaviour of Pausanias led to his recall. He was
   put on his trial; but his accusers failed to establish the
   personal charges brought against him, while his Medism also
   was dismissed as not fully proved. The suspicion, however, was
   so strong that he was deprived of his command. … All these
   events were tending to alienate the Asiatic Greeks and the
   islanders of the Egean from a state which showed itself
   incapable of maintaining its authority over its own servants."
   Even before the recall of Pausanius, "the Asiatic Greeks
   intreated Aristeides the Athenian commander to admit them into
   direct relations with Athens; and the same change of feeling
   had passed over all the non-medising Greek states with the
   exception of the Peloponnesian allies of Sparta. In short, it
   had become clear that all Hellas was divided into two great
   sections, the one gravitating as naturally to Sparta, the
   great land power, as the other gravitated to Athens with her
   maritime preponderance. When therefore a Spartan commission
   headed by Dorkis arrived with a small force to take the place
   of Pausanias, they were met by passive resistance where they
   had looked for submission; and their retirement from the field
   in which they were unable to compel obedience left the
   confederacy an accomplished fact."

      G. W. Cox,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 8 (volume 2).

   This confederacy of the Asiatic Greeks with Athens, now
   definitely organized, is known as the Confederacy of Delos, or
   the Delian League. "To Athens, as decidedly the preponderant
   power, both morally and materially, was of necessity, and also
   with free good-will, consigned the headship and chief control
   of the affairs and conduct of the alliance; a position that
   carried with it the responsibility of the collection and
   administration of a common fund, and the presidency of the
   assemblies of delegates. As time went on and circumstances
   altered, the terms of confederation were modified in various
   instances; but at first the general rule was the contribution,
   not only of money or ships, but of actual personal service.
   … We have no precise enumeration of the allies of Athens at
   this early time, but the course of the history brings up the
   mention of many.
   … Crete was never directly affected by these events, and
   Cyprus was also soon to be left aside; but otherwise all the
   Greek islands of the Aegean northwards—except Melos, Thera,
   Aegina, and Cythera—were contributory, including Euboea; as
   were the cities on the coasts of Thrace and the Chalcidic
   peninsula from the Macedonian boundary to the Hellespont;
   Byzantium and various cities on the coasts of the Propontis,
   and less certainly of the Euxine; the important series of
   cities on the western coast of Asia Minor—though apparently
   with considerable exceptions—Aeolian, Ionian, Dorian, and
   Carian, as far as Caunus at least on the borders of Lycia, if
   not even round to the Chelidonian isles. The sacred island of
   Delos was chosen as the depository of the common treasure and
   the place of meeting of the contributors. Apart from its
   central convenience and defensibleness as an island, and the
   sanctity of the temple, … it was a traditional centre for
   solemn reunions of Ionians from either side the Aegean. … At
   the distinct request of the allies the Athenians appointed
   Aristides to superintend the difficult process of assessing
   the various forms and amounts of contribution. … The total
   annual amount of the assessment was the large sum of 460
   talents (£112,125), and this perhaps not inclusive of, but
   only supplementary to, the costly supply of equipped ships."

      W. W. Lloyd,
      The Age of Pericles,
      chapter 14 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      E. Abbott,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapters 6 and 8.

GREECE: B. C. 477-462.
   Advancing democracy of Athens.
   Sustentation of the Commons from the Confederate Treasury.
   The stripping of power from the Areopagus.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 477-462.

GREECE: B. C. 477-461.
   Athens as the head of the Delian League.
   Triumph of Anti-Spartan policy at Athens and approach of war.
   Ostracism of Cimon.

   "Between the end of the Persian war and the year 464 B. C.,
   Sparta had sunk from the champion of the whole of Hellas to
   the half-discredited leader of the Peloponnese only. Athens,
   on the contrary, had risen from a subordinate member of the
   league controlled by Sparta to be the leader and almost the
   mistress of a league more dangerous than that over which
   Sparta held sway. Sparta unquestionably entertained towards
   Athens the jealous hatred of a defeated rival. By what steps
   Athens was increasing her control over the Delian League, and
   changing her position from that of a president to that of an
   absolute ruler will be explained. …

      See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

   She was at the same time prosecuting the war against Persia
   with conspicuous success. Her leader in this task was Cimon.
   In the domain of practice Athens produced no nobler son than
   this man. He was the son of Miltiades, the victor of Marathon,
   and by heredity and inclination took his stand with the
   conservative party in Athens.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 477-462, to 460-449.

   He succeeded here to the leading position of Aristides, and he
   possessed all that statesman's purity of character. … It was
   as a naval commander, and as a supporter of a forward policy
   against Persia, that Cimon won his greatest renown. But he had
   also a keen interest in the domestic development of Athens and
   her attitude to the other states of Greece. To maintain
   friendship with Sparta was the root of all his policy. His
   perfect honesty in supporting this policy was never
   questioned, and Sparta recognised his good will to them by
   appointing him Proxenus in Athens. It was his duty in this
   capacity to protect any Spartan resident in or visiting
   Athens. His character and personality were eminently
   attractive. … Under his guidance the Athenian fleet struck
   Persia blow on blow. … In 466, near the mouth of the
   Eurymedon in Pamphylia [see ATHENS: B. C. 470-466], the
   Persian fleet was destroyed, and after a fierce struggle her
   land forces also were defeated with very great slaughter. It
   was long before Persian influence counted for anything again
   on the waters of the Mediterranean. Cimon, with the personal
   qualities of Aristides, had obtained the successes of
   Themistocles. Opposition to Cimon was not wanting. The
   Athenian democracy had entered on a path that seemed blocked
   by his personal supremacy. And now the party of advancing
   democracy possessed a leader, the ablest and greatest that it
   was ever to possess. Pericles was about thirty years of age.
   … He was related to great families through both father and
   mother, and to great families that had championed the
   democratic side. His father Zanthippus had prosecuted
   Miltiades, the father of Cimon. … To lead the party of
   advanced democracy was to attack Cimon, against whom he had
   hereditary hostility. … When in 465 Thasos rebelled from
   Athens, defeat was certain unless she found allies. She
   applied to Sparta for assistance. Athens and Sparta were still
   nominally allies, for the creation of the Delian League had
   not openly destroyed the alliance that had subsisted between
   them since the days of the Persian war. But the Thasians hoped
   that Sparta's jealousy of Athens might induce her to disregard
   the alliance. And they reckoned rightly. The Spartan fleet was
   so weak that no interference upon the sea could be thought of,
   but if Attica were attacked by land the Athenians would be
   forced to draw off some part of their armament from Thasos.
   Sparta gave a secret promise that this attack should be made.
   But before they could fulfil their promise their own city was
   overwhelmed by a terrible earthquake. … Only five houses
   were left standing, and twenty thousand of the inhabitants
   lost their lives. King Archidamus saved the state from even
   more appalling ruin. While the inhabitants were dazed with the
   catastrophe, he ordered the alarm-trumpet to be blown; the
   military instincts of the Spartans answered to the call, and
   all that were left assembled outside of the city safe from the
   falling ruins. Archidamus's presence of mind saved them from
   even greater danger than that of earthquake. The disaster
   seemed to the masses of Helots that surrounded Sparta clear
   evidence of the wrath of the god Poseidon. … The Helots
   seized arms, therefore, and from all sides rushed upon Sparta.
   Thanks to Archidamus's action, they found the Spartans
   collected and ready for battle. They fell back upon Messenia,
   and concentrated their strength round Mount Ithome, the
   natural Acropolis of that district. … All the efforts of
   their opponents, never very successful in sieges, failed to
   dislodge them. At last, in 464, Sparta had to appeal to her
   allies for help against her own slaves; and, as Athens was her
   ally, she appealed to Athens. Should the help be granted? …
   Cimon advocated the granting of Sparta's demand with all his
   strength. … But there was much to be said on the other side,
   and it was said by Ephialtes and Pericles.
   The whole of Pericles's foreign policy is founded on the
   assumption that union between Athens and Sparta was
   undesirable and impossible. In everything they stood at
   opposite poles of thought. …. Cimon gained the vote of the
   people. He went at once with a force of four thousand
   heavy-armed soldiers to Ithome. Athenian soldiers enjoyed a
   great reputation for their ability in the conduct of sieges;
   but, despite their arrival, the Helots in Ithome still held
   out. And soon the Spartans grew suspicious of the Athenian
   contingent. The failure of Sparta was so clearly to the
   interest of Athens that the Spartans could not believe that
   the Athenians were in earnest in trying to prevent it; and at
   last Cimon was told that Sparta no longer had need of the
   Athenian force. The insult was all the more evident because
   none of the other allies were dismissed. Cimon at once
   returned to Athens. …


   On his return he still opposed those complete democratic
   changes that Pericles and Ephialtes were at this time
   introducing into the state. A vote of ostracism was demanded.
   The requisite number of votes fell to Cimon, and he had to
   retire into exile (461). … His ostracism doubtless allowed
   the democratic changes, in any case inevitable, to be
   accomplished without much opposition or obstruction, but it
   also deprived Athens of her best soldier at a time when she
   needed all her military talent. For Athens could not forget
   Sparta's insult. In 461 she renounced the alliance with her
   that had existed since the Persian wars; and that this rupture
   did not mean neutrality was made clear when, immediately
   afterwards, Athens contracted an alliance with Argos, always
   the enemy and now the dangerous enemy of Sparta, and with the
   Thessalians, who also had grounds of hostility to Sparta.
   Under such circumstances war could not be long in coming."

      A. J. Grant,
      Greece in the Age of Pericles,
      chapter 5.

      ALSO IN:
      Cimon; Pericles.

      C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 17 (volume 3).

      E. Abbott,
      Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens,
      chapters 5-6. 

GREECE: B. C. 460-449.
   Disastrous Athenian expedition to Egypt.
   Cimon's last enterprise against the Persians.
   The disputed Peace of Cimon, or Callias.
   Five years truce between Athens and Sparta.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

GREECE: B. C. 458-456.
   Alliance of Corinth and Ægina against Athens and Megara.
   Athenian victories.
   Siege and conquest of Ægina.
   The Spartans in Bœotia.
   Defeat of Athens at Tanagra.
   Her success at Œnophyta.
   Humiliation of Thebes.
   Athenian ascendancy restored.

   Crippled by the great earthquake of 464 B. C., and harassed by
   the succeeding Messenian War, "nothing could be done, on the
   part of Sparta, to oppose the establishment and extension of
   the separate alliance between Athens and Argos; and
   accordingly the states of Northern Peloponnesus commenced
   their armaments against Athens on their own account, in order
   to obtain by force what formerly they had achieved by secret
   intrigues and by pushing forward Sparta. To stop the progress
   of the Attic power was a necessary condition of their own
   existence; and thus a new warlike group of states formed
   itself among the members of the disrupted confederation. The
   Corinthians entered into a secret alliance with Ægina and
   Epidaurus, and endeavored to extend their territory and obtain
   strong positions beyond the Isthmus at the expense of Megara.
   This they considered of special importance to them, inasmuch
   as they knew the Megareans, whose small country lay in the
   midst between the two hostile alliances, to be allies little
   deserving of trust. … The fears of the Corinthians were
   realized sooner than they had anticipated. The Megareans,
   under the pressure of events, renounced their treaty
   obligations to Sparta, and joined the Attico-Argive alliance.
   … The passes of the Geranea, the inlets and outlets of the
   Doric peninsula, now fell into the hands of the Athenians;
   Megara became an outwork of Athens; Attic troops occupied its
   towns; Attic ships cruised in the Gulf of Corinth, where
   harbors stood open to them at Pegæ and Ægosthena. The
   Athenians were eager to unite Megara as closely as possible to
   themselves, and for this reason immediately built two lines of
   walls, which connected Megara with its port Nisæa, eight
   stadia off, and rendered both places impregnable to the
   Peloponnesians. This extension of the hostile power to the
   boundaries of the Isthmus, and into the waters of the western
   gulf, seemed to the maritime cities of Peloponnesus to force
   them into action. Corinth, Epidaurus, and Ægina commenced an
   offensive war against Athens—a war which opened without
   having been formally declared; and Athens unhesitatingly
   accepted the challenge thrown out with sufficient distinctness
   in the armaments of her adversaries. Myronides, an experienced
   general and statesman, … landed with an Attic squadron near
   Halieis (where the frontiers of the Epidaurians and Argives
   met), and here found a united force of Corinthians,
   Epidaurians, and Æginetans awaiting him. Myronides was
   unsuccessful in his campaign. A few months later the hostile
   fleets met off the island of Cecryphalea, between Ægina and
   the coast of Epidaurus. The Athenians were victorious, and the
   struggle now closed round Ægina itself. Immediately opposite
   the island ensued a second great naval battle. Seventy of the
   enemy's ships fell into the hands of the Athenians, whose
   victorious fleet without delay surrounded Ægina. The
   Peloponnesians were fully aware of the importance of Ægina to
   them. Three hundred hoplites came to the relief of the island,
   and the Corinthians marched across the Geranea into Megaris to
   the relief of Ægina. It seemed impossible that, while the
   fleet of the Athenians was fighting in the land of the Nile,
   and another was lying before Ægina, they should have a third
   army in readiness for Megara. But the Peloponnesians had no
   conception of the capabilities of action belonging to the
   Athenians. True, the whole military levy was absent from the
   country, and only enough men were left at home for the mere
   defence of the walls. Yet all were notwithstanding agreed that
   neither should Ægina be given up nor the new allies be left in
   the lurch. Myronides advanced to meet the Corinthians with
   troops composed of those who had passed the age of military
   service or not yet reached it. In the first fight he held his
   ground: when the hostile forces returned for the second time,
   they were routed with tremendous loss. Megara was saved, and
   the energy of the Athenians had been most splendidly
   In attestation of it the sepulchral pillars were erected in
   the Ceramicus, on which were inscribed the names of the
   Athenian soldiers who had fallen in one and the same year (Ol.
   lxxx 3; B. C. 458-7) off Cyprus, in Egypt, Phœicia, Halieis,
   Ægina, and Megara. A fragment of this remarkable historical
   document is preserved to this day. While thus many years'
   accumulation of combustible materials had suddenly broken out
   into a flame of the fiercest war in Central Greece, new
   complications also arose in the north. The Thebans, who had
   suffered so deep a humiliation, believed the time to have
   arrived when the events of the past were forgotten, and when
   they could attain to new importance and power. In opposition
   to them the Phocians put forth their strength. … After the
   dissolution of the Hellenic Confederation, and the calamities
   which had befallen the Spartans, the Phocians thought they
   might venture an attack upon the Dorian tetrapolis, in order
   to extend their frontiers in this direction. … For Sparta it
   was a point of honor not to desert the primitive communities
   of the Dorian race. She roused herself to a vigorous effort,
   and, notwithstanding all her losses and the continuance of the
   war in Messenia, was able to send 11,500 men of her own troops
   and those of the confederates across the Isthmus before the
   Athenians had time to place any obstacles in their way [B. C.
   457]. The Phocians were forced to relinquish their conquests.
   But when the Spartan troops were about to return home across
   the Isthmus they found the mountain-passes occupied by Athens,
   and the Gulf of Corinth made equally insecure by the presence
   of hostile ships. Nothing remained for the Lacedæmonians but
   to march into Bœotia, where their presence was welcome to
   Thebes. They entered the valley of the Asopus, and encamped in
   the territory of Tanagra, not far from the frontiers of
   Attica. Without calculating the consequences, the Athenians
   had brought themselves into an extremely dangerous situation.
   … Their difficulties increased when, contemporaneously, evil
   signs of treasonable plots made their appearance in the
   interior of the city. …

      See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

   Thus, then, it was now necessary to contend simultaneously
   against foes within and foes without, to defend the
   constitution as well as the independence of the state. Nor was
   the question merely as to an isolated attack and a transitory
   danger; for the conduct of the Spartans in Bœotia clearly
   showed that it was now their intention to restore to power
   Thebes … because they were anxious to have in the rear of
   Athens a state able to stop the extension of the Attic power
   in Central Greece. This intention could be best fulfilled by
   supporting Thebes in the subjugation of the other Bœotian
   cities. For this purpose the Peloponnesians had busily
   strengthened the Theban, i. e. the oligarchical party, in the
   whole of the country, and encircled Thebes itself with new
   fortifications. Thebes was from a country town to become a
   great city, an independent fortified position, and a base for
   the Peloponnesian cause in Central Greece. Hence Athens could
   not have found herself threatened by a more dangerous
   complication. The whole civic army accordingly took the field,
   amounting, together with the Argives, and other allies, to
   14,000 men, besides a body of Thessalian cavalry. In the low
   ground by the Asopus below Tanagra the armies met. An arduous
   and sanguinary struggle ensued, in which for the first time
   Athens and Sparta mutually tested their powers in a regular
   battle. For a long time the result was doubtful; till in the
   very thick of the battle the cavalry went over to the enemy,
   probably at the instigation of the Laconian party. This act of
   treason decided the day in favor of Sparta, although patriotic
   Athenians would never consent to count this among the battles
   lost by Athens. The Spartans were far from fulfilling the
   expectations of the party of the Oligarchs. As soon as they
   knew that the passes of the Isthmus were once more open, they
   took their departure, towards the fall of the year, through
   Megara, making this little country suffer for its defection by
   the devastation of its territory. … They reckoned upon
   Thebes being for the present strong enough to maintain herself
   against her neighbors; for ulterior offensive operations
   against Athens, Tanagra was to serve as a base. The plan was
   good, and the conjuncture of affairs favorable. But whatever
   the Spartans did, they did only by halves: they concluded a
   truce for four months, and quitted the ground. The Athenians,
   on the other hand, had no intention of allowing a menacing
   power to establish itself on the frontiers of their country.
   Without waiting for the return of the fair season, they
   crossed Mount Parnes two months after the battle, before any
   thoughts of war were entertained in Bœotia; Myronides, who was
   in command, defeated the Theban army which was to defend the
   valley of the Asopus, near Œnophyta. This battle with one blow
   put an end to all the plans of Thebes; the walls of Tanagra
   were razed. Myronides continued his march from town to town;
   everywhere the existing governments were overthrown, and
   democratic constitutions established with the help of Attic
   partisans. … Thus, after a passing humiliation, Athens was
   soon more powerful than ever, and her sway extended as far as
   the frontiers of the Phocians. Nay, during the same campaign
   she extended her military dominion as far as Locris. …
   Meanwhile the Æginetans also were gradually losing their power
   of resistance. For nine months they had resisted the Attic
   squadron. … Now their strength was exhausted; and the proud
   island of the Æacidæ, which Pindar had sung as the mother of
   the men who in the glorious rivalry of the festive games shone
   out before all other Hellenes, had to bow down before the
   irresistible good fortune of the Athenians, and was forced to
   pull down her walls, to deliver up her vessels of war, and
   bind herself to the payment of tribute. Contemporaneously with
   this event, the two arms of walls [at ATHENS] … between the
   upper and lower town were completed. Athens was now placed
   beyond the fear of any attack. … The Peloponnesian
   confederation was shaken to its very foundations; and Sparta
   was still let and hindered by the Messenian revolt, while the
   Athenians were able freely to dispose of their military and
   naval forces."

      E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 3, chapter 2 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      G. W. Cox,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 9 (volume 2).

      Peloponnesian War
      (translated by Jowett),
      book 1, sections 107-108.


GREECE: B. C. 449-445.
   Quarrel of Delphians and Phocians.
   Interference of Sparta and Athens.
   Bœotian revolution.
   Defeat of Athenians at Coroneia.
   Revolt of Eubœa and Megara.
   The Thirty Years Truce.

   In 449 B. C. "on occasion of a dispute between the Delphians
   and the Phocians as to which should have the care of the
   temple and its treasures, the Lacedæmonians sent an army, and
   gave them to the former; but as soon as they were gone,
   Pericles led thither an Athenian army, and put the Phocians in
   possession. Of this the Lacedæmonians took no notice. The
   right of Promanty, or first consulting the oracle, which had
   been given to Sparta by the Delphians, was now assigned to
   Athens by the Phocians; and this honor was probably the cause
   of the interference of both states. As the Athenians had given
   the upper hand to the democratic party in Bœotia, there was of
   course a large number of the opposite party in exile. These
   had made themselves masters of Orchomenus, Chæroneia, and some
   other places, and if not checked in time, might greatly
   endanger the Athenian influence. Tolmidas, therefore, led an
   army and took and garrisoned Chæroneia; but, as he was
   returning, he was attacked at Coroneia by the exiles from
   Orchomenus, joined by those of Eubœa and their other friends.
   Tolmidas fell, and his troops were all slain or made
   prisoners. (Ol. 83, 2.) [B. C. 447.] The Athenians, fearing a
   general war, agreed to a treaty, by which, on their prisoners
   being restored, they evacuated Bœotia. The exiles returned to
   their several towns, and things were placed on their old
   footing. … Eubœa was now (Ol. 83, 3) [B. C. 446] in revolt:
   and while Pericles was at the head of an army reducing it, the
   party in Megara adverse to Athens rose and massacred all the
   Athenian garrisons except that of Nisæa. Corinthians,
   Sicyonians, and Epidaurians came to their aid: and the
   Peloponnesians, led by one of the Spartan kings, entered and
   wasted the plain of Eleusis. Pericles led back his army from
   Eubœa, but the enemy was gone; he then returned and reduced
   that island, and having expelled the people of Hestiæa, gave
   their lands to Athenian colonists; and the Athenians, being
   unwilling to risk the chance of war with the Dorian
   confederacy, gladly formed (Ol. 83, 4) [B. C. 445] a truce for
   thirty years, surrendering Nisæa and Pegæ, and withdrawing a
   garrison which they had in Trœzen, and ceasing to interfere in

      T. Keightley,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 1.

   "The Athenians saw themselves compelled to give up their
   possessions in Peloponnesus, especially Achaia, as well as
   Trœzene and Pagæ, an important position for their
   communication with the peninsula. Even Nisæa was abandoned.
   Yet these losses, sensibly as they affected their influence
   upon the Grecian continent, were counterbalanced by a
   concession still more significant, the acknowledgment of the
   Delian League. It was left open to states and cities which
   were members of neither confederacy to join either at
   pleasure. These events happened in Ol. 83,3 (B. C. 445)—the
   revolt of Megara and Eubœa, the invasion of Pleistoanax, the
   re-conquest of Eubœa, and the conclusion of the treaty, which
   assumed the form of an armistice for thirty years. Great
   importance must be attributed to this settlement, as involving
   an acknowledgment which satisfied both parties and did justice
   to the great interests at stake on either side. If Athens
   renounced some of her possessions, the sacrifice was
   compensated by the fact that Sparta recognized the existence
   of the naval supremacy of Athens, and the basis on which it
   rested. We may perhaps assume that the compromise between
   Pericles and Pleistoanax was the result of the conviction felt
   by both these leading men that a fundamental dissociation of
   the Peloponnesian from the Delian league was a matter of
   necessity. The Spartans wished to be absolutely supreme in the
   one, and resigned the other to the Athenians."

      L. von Ranke,
      Universal History:
      The Oldest Historical Group of Nations and the Greeks,
      chapter 7, section 2.

      ALSO IN:
      Sir E. B. Lytton,
      Athens: Its Rise and Fall,
      book 5, chapter 1.

GREECE: B. C. 445-431.
   Splendor of Athens and greatness of the Athenian Empire under
   the rule of Pericles.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 445-431.

GREECE: B. C. 440.
   Subjugation of revolted Samos by the Athenians.
   Spartan interference prevented by Corinth.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

GREECE: B. C. 435-432.
   Causes of the Peloponnesian War.

   "In B. C. 431 the war broke out between Athens and the
   Peloponnesian League, which, after twenty-seven years, ended
   in the ruin of the Athenian empire. It began through a quarrel
   between Corinth and Kerkyra [or Korkyra, or Corcyru], in which
   Athens assisted Kerkyra. A congress was held at Sparta;
   Corinth and other States complained of the conduct of Athens,
   and war was decided on. The real cause of the war was that
   Sparta and its allies were jealous of the great power that
   Athens had gained. A far greater number of Greek States were
   engaged in this war than had ever been engaged in a single
   undertaking before. States that had taken no part in the
   Persian war were now fighting on one side or the other. Sparta
   was an oligarchy, and the friend of the nobles everywhere;
   Athens was a democracy, and the friend of the common people;
   so that the war was to some extent a struggle between these
   classes all over Greece."

      C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Greece (History Primer),
      chapter 5.

   "The Peloponnesian War was a protracted struggle, and attended
   by calamities such as Hellas had never known within a like
   period of time. Never were so many cities captured and
   depopulated—some by Barbarians, others by Hellenes themselves
   fighting against one another; and several of them after their
   capture were re-peopled by strangers. Never were exile and
   slaughter more frequent, whether in the war or brought about
   by civil strife. … There were earthquakes unparalleled in
   their extent and fury, and eclipses of the sun more numerous
   than are recorded to have happened in any former age; there
   were also in some places great droughts causing famines, and
   lastly the plague which did immense harm and destroyed numbers
   of the people. All these calamities fell upon Hellas
   simultaneously with the war, which began when the Athenians
   and Peloponnesians violated the thirty years' truce concluded
   by them after the recapture of Euboea. Why they broke it and
   what were the grounds of quarrel I will first set forth, that
   in time to come no man may be at a loss to know what was the
   origin of this great war. The real though unavowed cause I
   believe to have been the growth of the Athenian power, which
   terrified the Lacedaemonians and forced them into war."

      (translated by Jowett),
      book 1, section 23.

   The quarrel between Corinth and Korkyra, out of which, as an
   immediate excitement, the Peloponnesian War grew, concerned
   "the city of Epidamnus, known afterwards, in the Roman times,
   as Dyrrachium, hard by the modern Durazzo—a colony founded by
   the Korkyreans on the coast of Illyria, in the Ionic gulf,
   considerably to the north of their own island."
   The oligarchy of Epidamnus, driven out by the people, had
   allied themselves with the neighboring Illyrians and were
   harassing the city. Korkyra refused aid to the latter when
   appealed to, but Corinth (of which Korkyra was itself a
   colony) promptly rendered help. This involved Corinth and
   Korkyra in hostilities, and Athens gave support to the latter.

      E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      volume 3, book 4.

      ALSO IN:
      C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapters 19-30.

      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapters 47-48 (volume 5).

GREECE: B. C. 432.
   Great Sea-fight of the Corinthians
   with the Korkyrians and Athenians.
   Revolt of Potidæa.

   "Although Korkyra became the ally of Athens, the force sent to
   her aid was confined to the small number of ten ships, for the
   express purpose of making it clear to the Corinthians that no
   aggressive measures were intended; and the generals received
   precise instructions to remain strictly neutral unless the
   Corinthians should attempt to effect a landing either on
   Korkyra or on any Korkyraian settlements. The Corinthians lost
   no time in bringing the quarrel to an issue. With a fleet of
   150 ships, of which 60 were furnished by their allies, they
   sailed to the harbor of Cheimerion near the lake through which
   the river Acheron finds its way into the sea about thirty
   miles to the east of the southernmost promontory of Korkyra.
   The conflict which ensued exhibited a scene of confusion which
   the Athenian seamen probably regarded with infinite contempt.
   After a hard struggle the Korkyraians routed the right wing of
   the enemy's fleet, and chasing it to its camp on shore, lost
   time in plundering it and burning the tents. For this folly
   they paid a terrible price. The remainder of the Korkyraian
   fleet, borne down by sheer force of numbers, was put to
   flight, and probably saved from utter ruin only by the open
   interference of the Athenians, who now dashed into the fight
   without scruple, and came into direct conflict with the
   Corinthians. The latter were now resolved to press their
   advantage to the utmost. Sailing through the enemy's ships,
   they applied themselves to the task not of taking prizes, but
   of indiscriminate slaughter, to which not a few of their own
   people fell victims. After this work of destruction, they
   conveyed their disabled ships with their dead to Sybota, and,
   still unwearied, advanced again to the attack, although it was
   now late in the day. Their Paian, or battle cry, had already
   rung through the air, when they suddenly backed water. Twenty
   Athenian ships had come into sight, and the Corinthians,
   supposing them to be only the vanguard of a larger force,
   hastily retreated. The Korkyraians, ignorant of the cause of
   this movement, marvelled at their departure: but the darkness
   was now closing in, and they also withdrew to their own
   ground. So ended the greatest sea-fight in which Hellenes had
   thus far contended not with barbarians but with their own
   kinsfolk. On the following day the Korkyraians sailed to
   Sybota with such of their ships as were still fit for service,
   supported by the thirty Athenian ships. But the Corinthians,
   far from wishing to come to blows with the newcomers, were
   anxious rather for their own safety. Concluding that the
   Athenians now regarded the Thirty Years' Truce as broken, they
   were afraid of being forcibly hindered by them in their
   homeward voyage. It became necessary therefore to learn what
   they meant to do. The answer of the Athenians was plain and
   decisive. They did not mean to break the truce, and the
   Corinthians might go where they pleased, so long as they did
   not go to Korkyra or to any city or settlement belonging to
   her. … Upwards of a thousand prisoners had fallen into the
   hands of the Corinthians. Of these 250 were conveyed to
   Corinth, and treated with the greatest kindness and care. Like
   the Athenians, the Corinthians were acting only from a regard
   to their own interests. Their object was to send these
   prisoners back to Korkyra, nominally under pledge to pay a
   heavy ransom for their freedom, but having really covenanted
   to put down the Demos, and thus to insure the hearty alliance
   of Korkyra with Corinth. These men returned home to stir up
   the most savage seditions that ever disgraced an Hellenic

      G. W. Cox,
      General History of Greece,
      book 3, chapter 1.

   "The evils of this imprudent interference of the Athenians
   began now to be seen. In consequence of the Corcyrian
   alliance, the Athenians issued an order to Potidæa, a
   Macedonian town acknowledging their supremacy, to demolish its
   walls; to send back certain officers whom they had received
   from Corinth, and to give hostages for their good conduct.
   Potidæa, although an ally of Athens, had originally been a
   colony of Corinth, and thus arose the jealousy which
   occasioned these harsh and peremptory orders. Symptoms of
   universal hostility to Athens now appeared in the states
   around. The Corinthians and their allies were much irritated;
   the oppressed Potidæans were strongly instigated to revolt;
   and Perdiccas, king of Macedon, who had some time since been
   at open war with the Athenians, now gladly seized the
   opportunity to distress them, by exciting and assisting the
   malcontents. The Potidæans, however, deputed ambassadors to
   Athens to deprecate the harsh orders which had been sent them;
   but in the mean time to prepare for the worst, they also sent
   messengers to Sparta entreating support, where they met
   deputies from Corinth and Megara. By these loud and general
   complaints Sparta was at length roused to head the conspiracy
   against Athens, and the universal flames of war shortly
   afterwards broke forth throughout Greece." The revolt of
   Potidæa followed immediately; the Corinthians placed a strong
   force in the town, under Aristeus, and the Athenians sent an
   army under Phormion to lay siege to it.

      Early History of Greece
     (Enc. Metropolitana),
      page 283.

GREECE: B. C. 432-431.
   Charges brought by Corinth against Athens.
   The hearing and the Congress at Sparta.
   Decision for war.
   Theban attack on Platæa.
   The Peloponnesian War begun.

   The Corinthians "invited deputies from the other states of the
   confederacy to meet them at Sparta, and there charged the
   Athenians with having broken the treaty, and trampled on the
   rights of the Peloponnesians. The Spartans held an assembly to
   receive the complaints of their allies, and to discuss the
   question of peace or war. Here the Corinthians were seconded
   by several other members of the confederacy, who had also
   wrongs to complain of against Athens, and urged the Spartans
   for redress. … It happened that at this time Athenian
   envoys, who had been sent on other business, were still in
   They desired permission to attend and address the assembly.
   … When the strangers had all been heard, they were desired
   to withdraw, that the assembly might deliberate. The feeling
   against the Athenians was universal; most voices were for
   instant war. … The deputies of the allies were then informed
   of the resolution which the assembly had adopted, and that a
   general congress of the confederacy would shortly be summoned
   to deliberate on the same question, in order that war, if
   decided on, might be decreed by common consent. … The
   congress decided on the war; but the confederacy was totally
   unprepared for commencing hostilities, and though the
   necessary preparations were immediately begun and vigorously
   prosecuted, nearly a year elapsed before it was ready to bring
   an army into the field. In the meantime embassies were sent to
   Athens with various remonstrances and demands, for the double
   purpose of amusing the Athenians with the prospect of peace,
   and of multiplying pretexts for war. An attempt was made, not,
   perhaps, so foolish as it was insolent, to revive the popular
   dread of the curse which had been supposed to hang over the
   Alcmæonids. The Athenians were called upon, in the name of the
   gods, to banish all who remained among them of that
   blood-stained race. If they had complied with this demand,
   they must have parted with Pericles, who, by the mother's
   side, was connected with the Alcmæonids. This, indeed, was not
   expected; but it was hoped that the refusal might afford a
   pretext to his enemies at Athens for treating him as the
   author of the war. The Athenians retorted by requiring the
   Spartans to expiate the pollution with which they had profaned
   the sanctuary of Tænarus, by dragging from it some Helots who
   had taken refuge there, and that of Athene, by the death of
   Pausanias. … Still, war had been only threatened, not
   declared; and peaceful intercourse, though not wholly free
   from distrust, was still kept up between the subjects of the
   two confederacies. But early in the following spring, B. C.
   431, in the fifteenth year of the Thirty Years' Truce, an
   event took place which closed all prospects of peace,
   precipitated the commencement of war, imbittered the animosity
   of the contending parties, and prepared some of the most
   tragical scenes of the ensuing history. In the dead of night
   the city of Platæa was surprised by a body of 300 Thebans,
   commanded by two of the great officers called Bœotarchs. They
   had been invited by a Platæan named Nauclides, and others of
   the same party, who hoped, with the aid of the Thebans, to rid
   themselves of their political opponents, and to break off the
   relation in which their city was standing to Athens, and
   transfer its alliance to Thebes. The Thebans, foreseeing that
   a general war was fast approaching, felt the less scruple in
   strengthening themselves by this acquisition, while it might
   be made with little cost and risk. The gates were unguarded,
   as in time of peace, and one of them was secretly opened to
   the invaders, who advanced without interruption into the
   marketplace. … The Platæans, who were not in the plot,
   imagined the force by which their city had been surprised to
   be much stronger than it really was, and, as no hostile
   treatment was offered to them, remained quiet, and entered
   into a parley with the Thebans. In the course of these
   conferences they gradually discovered that the number of the
   enemy was small, and might be easily overpowered. … Having
   barricaded the streets with wagons, and made such other
   preparations as they thought necessary, a little before
   daybreak they suddenly fell upon the Thebans. The little band
   made a vigorous defence, and twice or thrice repulsed the
   assailants; but as these still returned to the charge, and
   were assisted by the women and slaves, who showered stones and
   tiles from the houses on the enemy, all, at the same time,
   raising a tumultuous clamour, and a heavy rain increased the
   confusion caused by the darkness, they at length lost their
   presence of mind, and took to flight. But most were unable to
   find their way in the dark through a strange town, and several
   were slain as they wandered to and fro in search of an outlet.
   … The main body, which had kept together, entered a large
   building adjoining the walls, having mistaken its gates, which
   they found open, for those of the town, and were shut in. The
   Platæans at first thought of setting fire to the building; but
   at length the men within, as well as the rest of the Thebans,
   who were still wandering up and down the streets, surrendered
   at discretion. Before their departure from Thebes it had been
   concerted that as large a force as could be raised should
   march the same night to support them. The distance between the
   two places was not quite nine miles, and these troops were
   expected to reach the gates of Platæa before the morning; but
   the Asopus, which crossed their road, had been swollen by the
   rain, and the state of the ground and the weather otherwise
   retarded them, so that they were still on their way when they
   heard of the failure of the enterprise. Though they did not
   know the fate of their countrymen, as it was possible that
   some might have been taken prisoners, they were at first
   inclined to seize as many of the Platæans as they could find
   without the walls, and to keep them as hostages. … The
   Thebans afterward alleged that they had received a promise,
   confirmed by an oath, that, on condition of their retiring
   from the Platæan territory, the prisoners should be released;
   and Thucydides seems disposed to believe this statement. The
   Platæans denied that they had pledged themselves to spare the
   lives of the prisoners, unless they should come to terms on
   the whole matter with the Thebans; but it does not seem likely
   that, after ascertaining the state of the case, the Thebans
   would have been satisfied with so slight a security. It is
   certain, however, that they retired, and that the Platæans, as
   soon as they had transported their movable property out of the
   country into the town, put to death all the prisoners—
   amounting to 180, and including Eurymachus, the principal
   author of the enterprise, and the man who possessed the
   greatest influence in Thebes. On the first entrance of the
   Thebans into Platæa, a messenger had been despatched to Athens
   with the intelligence, and the Athenians had immediately laid
   all the Bœotians in Attica under arrest; and when another
   messenger brought the news of the victory gained by the
   Platæans, they sent a herald to request that they would
   reserve the prisoners for the disposal of the Athenians. The
   herald came too late to prevent the execution; and the
   Athenians, foreseeing that Platæa would stand in great need of
   defence, sent a body of troops to garrison it, supplied it
   with provisions, and removed the women and children and all
   persons unfit for service in a siege.
   After this event it was apparent that the quarrel could only
   be decided by arms. Platæa was so intimately united with
   Athens, that the Athenians felt the attack which had been made
   on it as an outrage offered to themselves, and prepared for
   immediate hostilities. Sparta, too, instantly sent notice to
   all her allies to get their contingents ready by an appointed
   day for the invasion of Attica."

      C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 19 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      books 1-2.

GREECE: B. C. 431-429.
   The Peloponnesian War: How Hellas was divided.
   The opposing camps.
   Peloponnesian invasions of Attica.
   The Plague at Athens.
   Death of Pericles.
   Surrender of Potidæa to the Athenians.

   "All Hellas was excited by the coming conflict between her two
   chief cities. … The feeling of mankind was strongly on the
   side of the Lacedaemonians; for they professed to be the
   liberators of Hellas. … The general indignation against the
   Athenians was intense; some were longing to be delivered from
   them, others fearful of falling under their sway. … The
   Lacedaemonian confederacy included all the Peloponnesians with
   the exception of the Argives and the Achaeans—they were both
   neutral; only the Achaeans of Pellene took part with the
   Lacedaemonians at first; afterwards all the Achaeans joined
   them. Beyond the borders of the Peloponnese, the Megarians,
   Phocians, Locrians, Boeotians, Ambraciots, Leucadians, and
   Anactorians were their allies. Of these the Corinthians,
   Megarians, Sicyonians, Pellenians, Eleans, Ambraciots, and
   Leucadians provided a navy, the Boeotians, Phocians, and
   Locrians furnished cavalry, the other states only infantry.
   The allies of the Athenians were Chios, Lesbos, Plataea, the
   Messenians of Naupactus, the greater part of Acarnania,
   Corcyra, Zacynthus, and cities in many other countries which
   were their tributaries. There was the maritime region of
   Caria, the adjacent Dorian peoples, Ionia, the Hellespont, the
   Thracian coast, the islands that lie to the east within the
   line of Peloponnesus and Crete, including all the Cyclades
   with the exception of Melos and Thera. Chios, Lesbos and
   Corcyra furnished a navy; the rest, land forces and money.
   Thus much concerning the two confederacies, and the character
   of their respective forces. Immediately after the affair at
   Plataea the Lacedaemonians determined to invade Attica, and
   sent round word to their Peloponnesian and other allies,
   bidding them equip troops and provide all things necessary for
   a foreign expedition. The various states made their
   preparations as fast as they could, and at the appointed time,
   with contingents numbering two-thirds of the forces of each,
   met at the Isthmus." Then followed the invasion of Attica, the
   siege of Athens, the plague in the city, the death of
   Pericles, and the success won by the indomitable Athenians, at
   Potidaea, in the midst of their sore distress.

      (translated by Jowett),
      book 2, sections 8-70 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      E. Abbott,
      chapters 13-15.

      See ATHENS: 431 B. C. 431 and 430-429.

GREECE: B. C. 429-427.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Siege, capture and destruction of Platæa.

   "In the third spring of the war, the Peloponnesians changed
   their plan of offence. By the invasion and ravage of Attica
   for two following summers, tho much injury had been done to
   the Athenians, little advantage had accrued to themselves: the
   booty was far from paying the expense of the expedition; the
   enemy, it was found, could not be provoked to risk a battle,
   and the great purpose of the war was little forwarded. The
   Peloponnesians were yet very unequal to attempt naval
   operations of any consequence. Of the continental dependencies
   of Athens none was so open to their attacks, none so
   completely excluded from naval protection, none so likely by
   its danger to superinduce that war of the field which they
   wished, as Platæa. Against that town therefore it was
   determined to direct the principal effort. … Under the
   command still of Archidamus, the confederate army accordingly
   entered the Platæid, and ravage was immediately begun. … The
   town was small, as may be judged from the very small force
   which sufficed for an effectual garrison; only 400 Platæans,
   with 80 Athenians. There were besides in the place 110 women
   to prepare provisions, and no other person free or slave. The
   besieging army, composed of the flower of the Peloponnesian
   youth, was numerous. The first operation was to surround the
   town with a palisade, which might prevent any ready egress;
   the neighboring forest of Cithæron supplying materials. Then,
   in a chosen spot, ground was broken, according to the modern
   phrase, for making approaches. The business was to fill the
   town-ditch, and against the wall to form a mound, on which a
   force sufficient for assault might ascend. … Such was at
   that time the inartificial process of a siege. Thucydides
   appears to have been well aware that it did no credit to the
   science of his age. … To oppose this mode of attack, the
   first measure of the besieged was to raise, on that part of
   their wall against which the mound was forming, a strong
   wooden frame, covered in front with leather and hides; and,
   within this, to build a rampart with bricks from the
   neighboring houses. The wooden frame bound the whole, and kept
   it firm to a considerable height: the covering of hides
   protected both work and workmen against weapons discharged
   against them, especially fiery arrows. But the mound still
   rising as the superstructure on the wall rose, and this
   superstructure becoming unavoidably weaker with increasing
   height, while the mound was liable to no counterbalancing
   defect, it was necessary for the besieged to devise other
   opposition. Accordingly they broke through the bottom of
   their wall, where the mound bore against it, and brought in
   the earth. The Peloponnesians, soon aware of this, instead of
   loose earth, repaired their mound with clay or mud inclosed in
   baskets. This requiring more labor to remove, the besieged
   undermined the mound; and thus, for a long time unperceived,
   prevented it from gaining height. Still, however, fearing that
   the efforts of their scanty numbers would be overborne by the
   multitude of hands which the besiegers could employ, they had
   recourse to another device. Within their town-wall they built,
   in a semilunar form, a second wall, connected with the first
   at the extremities. These extended, on either side, beyond the
   mound; so that should the enemy possess themselves of the
   outer wall, their work would be to be renewed in a far less
   favorable situation. … A ram, advanced upon the
   Peloponnesian mound, battered the superstructure on the
   Platæan rampart, and shook it violently; to the great alarm of
   the garrison, but with little farther effect.
   Other machines of the same kind were employed against
   different parts of the wall itself, but to yet less purpose.
   … No means however were neglected by the besiegers that
   either approved practice suggested, or their ingenuity could
   devise, to promote their purpose; yet, after much of the
   summer consumed, they found every effort of their numerous
   forces so completely baffled by the vigilance, activity, and
   resolution of the little garrison, that they began to despair
   of succeeding by assault. Before however they would recur to
   the tedious method of blockade, they determined to try one
   more experiment, for which their numbers, and the neighboring
   woods of Cithæron, gave them more than ordinary facility.
   Preparing a very great quantity of faggots, they filled with
   them the town-ditch in the parts adjoining to their mound, and
   disposed piles in other parts around the place, wherever
   ground or any other circumstance gave most advantage. On the
   faggots they put sulphur and pitch, and then set all on fire.
   The conflagration was such as was never before known, says
   Thucydides, to have been prepared and made by the hands or
   men. … But fortunately for the garrison, a heavy rain,
   brought on by a thunderstorm without wind, extinguished the
   fire, and relieved them from an attack far more formidable
   than any they had before experienced. This attempt failing,
   the Peloponnesians determined immediately to reduce the siege
   to a blockade. … To the palisade, which already surrounded
   the town, a contravallation was added; with a double ditch,
   one without, and one within. A sufficient body of troops being
   then appointed to the guard of these works, the Bœotians
   undertaking one half, the other was allotted to detachments
   drafted from the troops of every state of the confederacy,
   and, a little after the middle of September, the rest of the
   army was dismissed for the winter."

      W. Mitford,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 15, section 1 (volume 2).

   When the blockade had endured for more than a year, and food
   in the city grew scarce, about half of the defending force
   made a bold dash for liberty, one stormy night, scaled the
   walls of circumvallation, and escaped. The remainder held out
   until some time in the next year, when they surrendered and
   were all put to death, the city being destroyed. The families
   of the Platæans had been sheltered at Athens before the siege

      books 2-3.

GREECE: B. C. 429-427.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Phormio's sea-fights.
   Revolt of Lesbos.
   Siege and capture of Mitylene.
   The ferocious decree of Cleon reversed.

   "At the same time that Archidamus laid siege to Plataea, a
   small Peloponnesian expedition, under a Spartan officer named
   Cnemus, had crossed the mouth of the Gulf of Corinth, and
   joined the land forces of the Leucadians and Ambraciots. They
   were bent on conquering the Acarnanians and the Messenians of
   Naupactus, the only continental allies whom Athens possessed
   in Western Greece. … When Cnemus had been joined by the
   troops of Leucas and the other Corinthian towns, and had
   further strengthened himself by summoning to his standard a
   number of the predatory barbarian tribes of Epirus, he
   advanced on Stratus, the chief city of Acarnania. At the same
   time a squadron of Peloponnesian ships collected at Corinth,
   and set sail down the gulf towards Naupactus. The only
   Athenian force in these waters consisted of twenty galleys
   under an able officer named Phormio, who was cruising off the
   straits of Rhium, to protect Naupactus and blockade the
   Corinthian Gulf. Both by land and by sea the operations of the
   Peloponnesians miscarried miserably. Cnemus collected a very
   considerable army, but as he sent his men forward to attack
   Stratus by three separate roads, he exposed them to defeat in
   detail. … By sea the defeat of the Peloponnesians was even
   more disgraceful; the Corinthian admirals Machaon and
   Isocrates were so scared, when they came across the squadron
   of Phormio at the mouth of the gulf, that, although they
   mustered 47 ships to his 20, they took up the defensive.
   Huddling together in a circle, they shrank from his attack,
   and allowed themselves to be hustled and worried into the
   Achaian harbour of Patrae, losing several ships in their
   flight. Presently reinforcements arrived; the Peloponnesian
   fleet was raised to no less than 77 vessels, and three Spartan
   officers were sent on board, to compel the Corinthian
   admirals, who had behaved so badly, to do their best in
   future. The whole squadron then set out to hunt down Phormio.
   They found him with his 20 ships coasting along the Aetolian
   shore towards Naupactus, and at once set out in pursuit. The
   long chase separated the larger fleet into scattered knots,
   and gave the fighting a disconnected and irregular character.
   While the rear ships of Phormio's squadron were compelled to
   run on shore a few miles outside Naupactus, the 11 leading
   vessels reached the harbour in safety. Finding that he was now
   only pursued by about a score of the enemy—the rest having
   stayed behind to take possession of the stranded Athenian
   vessels—Phormio came boldly out of port again. His 11
   vessels took 6, and sunk one of their pursuers; and then,
   pushing on westward, actually succeeded in recapturing most of
   the 9 ships which had been lost in the morning. This
   engagement, though it had no great results, was considered the
   most daring feat performed by the Athenian navy during the
   whole war. … The winter passed uneventfully, and the war
   seemed as far as ever from showing any signs of producing a
   definite result. But although the Spartan invasion of 428 B.
   C. had no more effect than those of the preceding years, yet
   in the late summer there occurred an event so fraught with
   evil omens for Athens, as to threaten the whole fabric of her
   empire. For the first time since the commencement of
   hostilities, an important subject state made an endeavour to
   free itself by the aid of the Spartan fleet. Lesbos was one of
   the two Aegean islands which still remained free from tribute,
   and possessed a considerable war-navy. Among its five towns
   Mitylene was the chief, and far exceeded the others in wealth
   and resources. It was governed by an oligarchy, who had long
   been yearning to revolt, and had made careful preparation by
   accumulating war-like stores and enlisting foreign
   mercenaries. … The whole island except Methymna, where a
   democracy ruled, rose in arms, and determined to send for aid
   to Sparta. The Athenians at once despatched against Mitylene a
   squadron of 40 ships under Cleïppides, which had just been
   equipped for a cruise in Peloponnesian waters. This force had
   an engagement with the Lesbian fleet, and drove it back into
   the harbour of Mitylene.
   To gain time for assistance from across the Aegean to arrive,
   the Lesbians now pretended to be anxious to surrender, and
   engaged Cleïppides in a long and fruitless negotiation, while
   they were repeating their demands at Sparta. But at last the
   Athenian grew suspicious, established a close blockade of
   Mitylene by sea, and landed a small force of hoplites to hold
   a fortified camp on shore. … Believing the revolt of the
   Lesbians to be the earnest of a general rising of all the
   vassals of Athens, the Peloponnesians determined to make a
   vigorous effort in their favour. The land contingents of the
   various states were summoned to the Isthmus—though the
   harvest was now ripe, and the allies were loath to leave their
   reaping—while it was also determined to haul over the
   Corinthian Isthmus the fleet which had fought against Phormio,
   and then to despatch it to relieve Mitylene. … The Athenians
   were furious at the idea that their vassals were now about to
   be stirred up to revolt, and strained every nerve to defend
   themselves. While the blockade of Mitylene was kept up, and
   100 galleys cruised in the Aegean to intercept any succours
   sent to Lesbos, another squadron of 100 ships sailed round
   Peloponnesus and harried the coastland with a systematic
   ferocity that surpassed any of their previous doings. To
   complete the crews of the 250 ships now afloat and in active
   service proved so great a drain on the military force of
   Athens, that not only the Thetes but citizens of the higher
   classes were drafted on shipboard. Nevertheless the effect
   which they designed by this display of power was fully
   produced. To defend their own harvests the confederates who
   had met at the Isthmus went homewards, while the dismay at the
   strength of the Athenian fleet was so great that the plan of
   sending naval aid to Lesbos was put off for the present. …
   All through the winter of 428-7 B. C. the blockade of Mitylene
   was kept up, though its maintenance proved a great drain on
   the resources of Athens. On the land side a considerable force
   of hoplites under Paches strengthened the troops already on
   the spot, and made it possible to wall the city in with lines
   of circumvallation. … When the spring of 427 B. C. arrived,
   the Spartans determined to make a serious attempt to send aid
   to Lesbos; but the fear of imperiling all their naval
   resources in a single expedition kept them from despatching a
   fleet of sufficient size. Only 42 galleys, under an admiral
   named Alcidas, were sent forth from Corinth. This squadron
   managed to cross the Aegean without meeting the Athenians, by
   steering a cautious and circuitous course among the islands.
   But so much time was lost on the way, that on arriving off
   Embatum in Ionia, Ælia found that Mitylene had surrendered
   just seven days before. … Learning the fall of Mitylene, he
   made off southward, and, after intercepting many merchant
   vessels off the Ionian coast and brutally slaying their crews,
   returned to Corinth without having struck a single blow for
   the cause of Sparta. Paches soon reduced Antissa, Eresus, and
   Pyrrha, the three Lesbian towns which had joined in the revolt
   of Mitylene, and was then able to sail home, taking with him
   the Laconian general Salaethus, who had been caught in hiding
   at Mitylene, together with the other leaders of the revolt.
   When the prisoners arrived at Athens Salaethus was at once put
   to death without a trial. But the fate of the Lesbians was the
   subject of an important and characteristic debate in the
   Ecclesia. Led by the demagogue Cleon, the Athenians at first
   passed the monstrous resolution that the whole of the
   Mitylenaeans, not merely the prisoners at Athens, but every
   adult male in the city, should be put to death, and their
   wives and families sold as slaves. It is some explanation but
   no excuse for this horrible decree that Lesbos had been an
   especially favoured ally, and that its revolt had for a moment
   put Athens in deadly fear of a general rising of Ionia and
   Aeolis. Cleon the leather-seller, the author of this infamous
   decree, was one of the statesmen of a coarse and inferior
   stamp, whose rise had been rendered possible by the democratic
   changes which Pericles had introduced into the state. … On
   the eve of the first day of debate the motion of Cleon had
   been passed, and a galley sent off to Paches at Mitylene,
   bidding him slay all the Lesbians; but on the next morning …
   the decree of Cleon was rescinded by a small majority, and a
   second galley sent off to stay Paches from the massacre. …
   By extraordinary exertions the bearers of the reprieve
   contrived to reach Lesbos only a few hours after Paches had
   received the first despatch, and before he had time to put it
   into execution. Thus the majority of the Mitylenaeans were
   saved; but all their leaders and prominent men, not less than
   1,000 in number, were put to death. … The land of the
   Lesbians was divided into 3,000 lots, of which a tenth was
   consecrated to the gods, while the rest were granted out to
   Athenian cleruchs, who became the landlords of the old

      C. W. C. Oman,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 28.

      ALSO IN:
      book 2, sections 80-92,
      and book 3, sections 1-50.

      E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 4, chapter 2 (volume 3).

GREECE: B. C. 425.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Spartan catastrophe at Sphacteria.
   Peace pleaded for and refused by Athens.

   In the seventh year of the Peloponnesian War (B. C. 425), the
   enterprising Athenian general, Demosthenes, obtained
   permission to seize and fortify a harbor on the west coast of
   Messenia, with a view to harassing the adjacent Spartan
   territory and stirring up revolt among the subjugated
   Messenians. The position he secured was the promontory of
   Pylus, overlooking the basin now called the Bay of Navarino,
   which latter was protected from the sea by the small island of
   Sphacteria, stretching across its front. The seizure of Pylus
   created alarm in Sparta at once, and vigorous measures were
   taken to expel the intruders. The small force of Demosthenes
   was assailed, front and rear, by a strong land army and a
   powerful Peloponnesian fleet; but he had fortified himself
   with skill and stoutly held his ground, waiting for help from
   Athens. Meantime his assailants had landed 420 men on the
   island of Sphacteria, and these were mostly hoplites, or
   heavy-armed soldiers, from the best citizenship of Sparta. In
   this situation an Athenian fleet made its sudden and
   unexpected appearance, defeated the Peloponnesian fleet
   completely, took possession of the harbor and surrounded the
   Spartans on Sphacteria with a ring from which there was no
   escape. To obtain the release of these citizens the Spartans
   were reduced to plead for peace on almost any terms, and
   Athens had her opportunity to end the war at that moment with
   great advantage to herself. But Cleon, the demagogue,
   persuaded the people to refuse peace. The beleaguered hoplites
   on Sphacteria were made prisoners by force, and little came of
   it in the end.


      book 4, sections 2-38.

   Pylus remained in the possession of the Athenians until
   B. C. 408, when it was retaken by the Spartans.

      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 52.

      ALSO IN:
      E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 4, chapter 2 (volume 3).

GREECE: B. C. 424-421.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Brasidas in Chalcidice.
   Athenian defeat at Delium.
   A year's Truce.
   Renewed hostilities.
   Death of Brasidas and Cleon at Amphipolis.
   The Peace of Nikias (Nicias).

   "About the beginning of 424 B. C. Brasidas did for Sparta what
   Demosthenes had done for the Athenians. Just as Demosthenes
   had understood that the severest blow which he could inflict
   on Sparta was to occupy the coasts of Laconia, so Brasidas
   understood that the most effective method of assailing the
   Athenians was to arouse the allies to revolution, and by all
   means to aid the uprising. But since, from lack of a
   sufficient naval force, he could not work on the islands, he
   resolved to carry the war to the allied cities of the
   Athenians situated on the coast of Macedonia; especially since
   Perdikkas, king of Macedonia, the inhabitants of Chalkidike,
   and some other districts subject to the Athenians, had sought
   the assistance of Sparta, and had asked Brasidas to lead the
   undertaking. Sparta permitted his departure, but so little did
   she appear disposed to assist him, that she granted him only
   700 Helots. In addition to these, however, he succeeded,
   through the money sent from Chalkidike, in enrolling about
   1,000 men from the Peloponnesus. With this small force of
   1,700 hoplites, Brasidas resolved to undertake this
   adventurous and important expedition. He started in the spring
   of 424, and reached Macedonia through eastern Hellas and
   Thessaly. He effected the march with great daring and wisdom,
   and on his way he also saved Megara, which was in extreme
   danger from the Athenians. Reaching Macedonia and uniting
   forces with Perdikkas, Brasidas detached from the Athenians
   many cities, promising them liberty from the tyranny they
   suffered, and their association in the Peloponnesian alliance
   on equal terms. He made good these promises by great military
   experience and perfectly honest dealings. In December he
   became master of Amphipolis, perhaps the most important of all
   the foreign possessions of Athens. The historian Thucydides,
   to whom was intrusted the defense of that important town, was
   at Thasos when Brasidas surprised it. He hastened to the
   assistance of the threatened city, but did not arrive in time
   to prevent its capture. Dr. Thirlwall says it does not appear
   that human prudence and activity could have accomplished
   anything more under the same circumstances; yet his
   unavoidable failure proved the occasion of a sentence under
   which he spent twenty years of his life in exile, where he
   composed his history. … The revolution of the allied cities
   in Macedonia astonished the Athenians, who almost at the same
   time sustained other misfortunes. Following the advice of
   Kleon, instead of directing their main efforts to the
   endangered Chalkidike, they decided, about the middle of 424,
   to recover Bœotia itself, in conjunction as usual with some
   malcontents in the Bœotian towns, who desired to break down
   and democratize the oligarchical governments. The undertaking,
   however, was not merely unsuccessful, but attended with a
   ruinous defeat. A force of 7,000 hoplites [among them,
   Socrates, the philosopher—see DELIUM], several hundred
   horsemen, and 25,000 light-armed under command of Hippokrates,
   took possession of Delium, a spot strongly situated,
   overhanging the sea, about five miles from Tanagra, and very
   near the Attic confines. But while the Athenians were still
   occupied in raising their fortifications, they were suddenly
   startled by the sound of the Bœotian pæan, and found
   themselves attacked by an army of 7,000 hoplites, 1,000 horse,
   and 500 peltasts. The Athenians suffered a complete defeat,
   and were driven away with great loss. Such was the change of
   affairs which took place in 424 B. C. During the preceding
   year they could have ended the war in a manner most
   advantageous to them. They did not choose to do so, and were
   now constantly defeated. Worse still, the seeds of revolt
   spread among the allied cities. The best citizens, among whom
   Nikias was a leader, finally persuaded the people that it was
   necessary to come to terms of peace, while affairs were yet
   undecided. For, although the Athenians had suffered the
   terrific defeat near Delium, and had lost Amphipolis and other
   cities of Macedonia, they were still masters of Pylos, of
   Kythera, of Methone, of Nisæa, and of the Spartans captured in
   Sphakteria; so that there was now an equality of advantages
   and of losses. Besides, the Lacedæmonians were ever ready to
   lay aside the sword in order to regain their men. Again, the
   oligarchy in Sparta envied Brasidas, and did not look with
   pleasure on his splendid achievements. Lately they had refused
   to send him any assistance whatever: The opportunity,
   therefore, was advantageous for the conclusion of peace, …
   Such were the arguments by which Nikias and his party finally
   gained the ascendency over Kleon, and in the beginning of 423
   B. C. persuaded the Athenians to enter into an armistice of
   one year, within which they hoped to be able to put an end to
   the destructive war by a lasting peace. Unfortunately, the
   armistice could not be carried out in Chalkidike. The cities
   there continued in their rebellion against the Athenians.
   Brasidas could not be prevailed upon to leave them unprotected
   in the struggle which they had undertaken, relying on his
   promises of assistance. The war-like party at Athens, taking
   advantage of this, succeeded in frustrating any definite
   conditions of peace. On the other hand, the Lacedæmonians,
   seeing that the war was continued, sent an ample force to
   Brasidas. This army did not succeed in reaching him, because
   the king of Macedonia, Perdikkas, had in the meantime become
   angered with Brasidas, and persuaded the Thessalians to oppose
   the Lacedæmonians in their passage. The year of the armistice
   passed, and Kleon renewed his expostulations against the
   incompetency of the generals who had the control of affairs in
   Chalkidike. … The Athenians decided to forward a new force,
   and intrusted its command to Kleon. He therefore, in August,
   422 B. C., started from the Peiræus, with 1,200 hoplites, 300
   horsemen, a considerable number of allies, and thirty
   triremes. Reaching Chalkidike, he engaged in battle against
   Brasidas in Amphipolis, suffered a disgraceful defeat, and was
   killed while fleeing. Brasidas also ended his short but
   glorious career in this battle, dying the death of a hero. The
   way in which his memory was honored was the best evidence of
   the deep impression that he had made on the Hellenic world.
   All the allies attended his funeral in arms, and interred him
   at the public expense, in front of the market-place of
   Amphipolis. … Thus disappeared the two foremost champions of
   the war—its good spirit, Brasidas, and its evil, Kleon. The
   party of Nikias finally prevailed at Athens, and that general
   soon after arranged a conference with King Pleistoanax of
   Sparta, who was also anxious for peace. Discussions continued
   during the whole autumn and winter after the battle of
   Amphipolis, without any actual hostilities on either side.
   Finally, at the beginning of the spring of 421 B. C., a peace
   of fifty years was agreed upon. The principal conditions of
   this peace, known in history as the 'peace of Nikias,' were as

   1. The Lacedæmonians and their allies were to restore
   Amphipolis and all the prisoners to the Athenians. They were
   further to relinquish to the Athenians Argilus, Stageirus,
   Acanthus, Skolus, Olynthus, and Spartolus. But, with the
   exception of Amphipolis, these cities were to remain
   independent, paying to the Athenians only the usual tribute of
   the time of Aristeides.

   2. The Athenians should restore to the Lacedæmonians
   Koryphasium, Kythera, Methone, Pteleum, and Atalante, with all
   the captives in their hands from Sparta or her allies.

   3. Respecting Skione, Torone, Sermylus, or any other town in
   the possession of Athens, the Athenians should have the right
   to adopt such measures as they pleased.

   4. The Lacedæmonians and their allies should restore Panaktum
   to the Athenians.

   When these terms were submitted at Sparta to the consideration
   of the allied cities, the majority accepted them. The
   Bœotians, Megarians, and Corinthians, however, summarily
   refused their consent. The Peloponnesian war was now
   considered to be at an end, precisely ten years from its
   beginning; Both the combatants came out from it terribly
   maimed. Sparta not only did not attain her object—the
   emancipation of the Hellenic cities from the tyranny of the
   Athenians—but even officially recognized this tyranny, by
   consenting that the Athenians should adopt such measures as
   they choose toward the allied cities. Besides, Sparta obtained
   an ill repute throughout Hellas, because she had abandoned the
   Greeks in Chalkidike, who had at her instigation revolted, and
   because she had also sacrificed the interests of her principal
   allies. … Athens, on the other hand, preserved intact her
   supremacy, for which she undertook the struggle. This,
   however, was gained at the cost of Attica ravaged, a multitude
   of citizens slain, the exhaustion of the treasury, and the
   increase of the common hatred."

      T. T. Timayenis,
      History of Greece,
      part 5, chapter 4 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 23 (volume 3).

GREECE: B. C. 421-418.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   New combinations.
   The Argive League against Sparta.
   Conflicting alliances of Athens with both.
   Rising influence of Alcibiades.
   War in Argos.
   Spartan victory at Mantinea.
   Revolution in Argos.

   "All the Spartan allies in Peloponnesus and the Boeotians
   refused to join in this treaty [of Nicias]. The latter
   concluded with the Athenians only a truce of ten days … ,
   probably on condition, that, if no notice was given to the
   contrary, it was to be constantly renewed after the lapse of
   ten days. With Corinth there existed no truce at all. Some of
   the terms of the peace were not complied with, though this was
   the case much less on the part of Athens than on that of
   Sparta. … The Spartans, from the first, were guilty of
   infamous deception, and this immediately gave rise to bitter
   feelings. But before matters had come to this, and when the
   Athenians were still in the full belief that the Spartans were
   honest, all Greece was startled by a treaty of alliance
   between Athens and Sparta against their common enemies. This
   treaty was concluded very soon after the peace. … The
   consequence was, that Sparta suddenly found herself deserted
   by all her allies; the Corinthians and Boeotians renounced
   her, because they found themselves given over to the
   Athenians, and the Boeotians perhaps thought that the
   Spartans, if they could but reduce the Eleans to the condition
   of Helots, would readily allow Boeotia to be subdued by the
   Athenians. Thus Argos found the means of again following a
   policy which ever since the time of Cleomenes it had not
   ventured to think of, and … became the centre of an alliance
   with Mantinea, 'which had always been opposed to the
   Lacedaemonians,' and some other Arcadian towns, Achaia, Elis,
   and some places of the Acte. The Arcadians had dissolved their
   union, the three people of the country had separated
   themselves, though sometimes they united again; and thus it
   happened that only some of their towns were allied with Argos.
   Corinth at first would listen to neither party, and chose to
   remain neutral; 'for although for the moment it was highly
   exasperated against Sparta, yet it had at all times
   entertained a mortal hatred of Argos, and its own interests
   drew it towards Sparta.' But when, owing to Sparta's
   dishonesty, the affairs on the coasts of Thrace became more
   and more complicated, when the towns refused to submit to
   Athens, and when it became evident that this was the
   consequence of the instigations of Sparta, then the relation
   subsisting between the two states became worse also in Greece,
   and various negotiations and cavillings ensued. … After much
   delay, the Athenians and Spartans were already on the point of
   taking up arms against each other; but then they came to the
   singular agreement (Olympiad 89, 4), that the Athenians should
   retain possession of Pylos, but keep in it only Athenian
   troops, and not allow the Helots and Messenians to remain
   there. After this the loosened bonds between the Spartans,
   Corinthians, and Boeotians, were drawn more closely. The
   Boeotians were at length prevailed upon to surrender Panacton
   to the Spartans, who now restored it to the Athenians. This
   was in accordance with the undoubted meaning of the peace; but
   the Boeotians had first destroyed the place, and the Spartans
   delivered it to the Athenians only a heap of ruins. The
   Athenians justly complained, that this was not an honest
   restoration, and that the place ought to have been given back
   to them with its fortifications uninjured. The Spartans do not
   appear to have had honest intentions in any way. … While
   thus the alliance between Athens and Sparta, in the eyes of
   the world, still existed, it had in reality ceased and become
   an impossibility. Another alliance, however, was formed
   between Athens and Argos (Olympiad 89, 4) through the
   influence of Alcibiades, who stood in the relation of an
   hereditary proxenus to Argos.
   A more natural alliance than this could not be conceived, and
   by it the Athenians gained the Mantineans, Eleans, and other
   Peloponnesians over to their side. Alcibiades now exercised a
   decisive influence upon the fate of his country. … We
   generally conceive Alcibiades as a man whose beauty was his
   ornament, and to whom the follies of life were the main thing,
   and we forget that part of his character which history reveals
   to us. … Thucydides, who cannot be suspected of having been
   particularly partial to Alcibiades, most expressly recognises
   the fact, that the fate of Athens depended upon him, and that,
   if he had not separated his own fate from that of his native
   city, at first from necessity, but afterwards of his own
   accord, the course of the Peloponnesian war, through his
   personal influence alone, would have taken quite a different
   direction, and that he alone would have decided it in favour
   of Athens. This is, in fact, the general opinion of all
   antiquity, and there is no ancient writer of importance who
   does not view and estimate him in this light. It is only the
   moderns that entertain a derogatory opinion of him, and speak
   of him as an eccentric fool, who ought not to be named among
   the great statesmen of antiquity. … Alcibiades is quite a
   peculiar character; and I know no one in the whole range of
   ancient history who might be compared with him, though I have
   sometimes thought of Caesar. … Alcibiades was opposed to the
   peace of Nicias from entirely personal, perhaps even mean,
   motives. … It was on his advice that Athens concluded the
   alliance with Argos and Elis. Athens now had two alliances
   which were equally binding, and yet altogether opposed to each
   other: the one with Sparta, and an equally stringent one with
   Argos, the enemy of Sparta. This treaty with Argos, the
   Peloponnesians, etc., was extremely formidable to the
   Spartans; and they accordingly, for once, determined to act
   quickly, before it should be too late. The alliance with
   Argos, however, did not confer much real strength upon Athens,
   for the Argives were lazy, and Elis did not respect them,
   whence the Spartans had time again to unite themselves more
   closely with Corinth, Boeotia, and Megara. When, therefore,
   the war between the Spartans and Argives broke out, and the
   former resolutely took the field, Alcibiades persuaded the
   Athenians to send succour to the Argives, and thus the peace
   with Sparta was violated in an unprincipled manner. But still
   no blow was struck between Argos and Sparta. … King Agis had
   set out with a Spartan army, but concluded a truce with the
   Argives (Olympiad 90, 2); this, however, was taken very ill at
   Sparta, and the Argive commanders who had concluded it were
   censured by the people and magistrates of Argos. Soon
   afterwards the war broke out again, and, when the Athenian
   auxiliaries appeared, decided acts of hostility commenced. The
   occasion was an attempt of the Mantineans to subdue Tegea: the
   sad condition of Greece became more particularly manifest in
   Arcadia, by the divisions which tore one and the same nation
   to pieces. The country was distracted by several parties; had
   Arcadia been united, it would have been invulnerable. A battle
   was fought (Olympiad 90, 3) in the neighbourhood of Mantinea,
   between the Argives, their Athenian allies, the Mantineans,
   and part of the Arcadians ('the Eleans, annoyed at the conduct
   of the Argives, had abandoned their cause'), on the one hand,
   and the Spartans and a few allies on the other. The Spartans
   gained a most decisive victory; and, although they did not
   follow it up, yet the consequence was, that Argos concluded
   peace, the Argive alliance broke up, and at Argos a revolution
   took place, in which an oligarchical government was
   instituted, and by which Argos was drawn into the interest of
   Sparta (Olympiad 90, 4). This constitution, however, did not
   last, and very soon gave way to a democratic form of
   government. Argos, even at this time, and still more at a
   later period, is a sad example of the most degenerate and
   deplorable democracy, or, more properly speaking, anarchy."

      B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on Ancient History,
      lecture 49 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:

      W. Mitford,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 17 (volume 3).

GREECE: B. C. 416.
   Siege and conquest of Melos by the Athenians.
   Massacre of the inhabitants.

   "It was in the beginning of summer 416 B. C. that the
   Athenians undertook the siege and conquest of the Dorian
   island of Mêlos, one of the Cyclades, and the only one, except
   Thêra, which was not already included in their empire. Mêlos
   and Thêra were both ancient colonies of Lacedæmon, with whom
   they had strong sympathies of lineage. They had never joined
   the confederacy of Delos, nor been in any way connected with
   Athens; but, at the same time, neither had they ever taken
   part in the recent war against her, nor given her any ground
   of complaint, until she landed and attacked them in the sixth
   year of the recent war. She now renewed her attempt, sending
   against the island a considerable force under Kleomêdês and

      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 56.

   "They desired immediate submission on the part of Melos, any
   attempt at resistance being regarded as an inroad upon the
   omnipotence of Athens by sea. For this reason they were wroth
   at the obstinate courage of the islanders, who broke off all
   further negotiations, and thus made it necessary for the
   Athenians to commence a costly circumvallation of the city.
   The Melians even succeeded on two successive occasions in
   breaking through part of the wall built round them by the
   enemy, and obtaining fresh supplies; but no relief arrived;
   and they had to undergo sufferings which made the 'Melian
   famine' a proverbial phrase to express the height of misery;
   and before the winter ended the island was forced to surrender
   unconditionally. … There was no question of quarter. All the
   islanders capable of bearing arms who had fallen into the
   hands of the Athenians were sentenced to death, and all the
   women and children to slavery."

      E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 4, chapter 4 (volume 3).

      ALSO IN:
      book 5, sections 84-116.

GREECE: B. C. 415.
   The mutilation of the Hermæ at Athens.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 415.

GREECE: B. C. 415-413.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Disastrous Athenian expedition against Syracuse.
   Alcibiades a fugitive in Sparta.
   His enmity to Athens.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.


GREECE: B. C. 413.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Effects and consequences of the Sicilian expedition.
   Prostration of Athens.
   Strengthening of Sparta.
   Negotiations with the Persians against Athens.
   Peloponnesian invasion of Attica.
   The Decelian War.

   "The Sicilian expedition ended in a series of events which, to
   this day, it is impossible to recall without a feeling of
   horror. … Since the Persian wars it had never come to pass,
   that on the one side all had been so completely lost, while on
   the other all was won. … When the Athenians recovered from
   the first stupefaction of grief, they called to mind the
   causes of the whole calamity, and hereupon in passionate fury
   turned round upon all who had advised the expedition, or who
   had encouraged vain hopes of victory, as orators, prophets, or
   soothsayers. Finally, the general excitement passed into the
   phase of despair and terror, conjuring up dangers even greater
   and more imminent than existed in reality. The citizens every
   day expected to see the Sicilian fleet with the Peloponnesians
   appear off the harbor, to take possession of the defenceless
   city; and they believed that the last days of Athens had
   arrived. … Athens had risked all her military and naval
   resources for the purpose of overcoming Syracuse. More than
   200 ships of state, with their entire equipment, had been
   lost; and if we reckon up the numbers despatched on successive
   occasions to Sicily, the sum total, inclusive of the auxiliary
   troops, may be calculated at about 60,000 men. A squadron
   still lay in the waters of Naupactus; but even this was in
   danger and exposed to attack from the Corinthians, who had
   equipped fresh forces. The docks and naval arsenals were
   empty, and the treasury likewise. In the hopes of enormous
   booty and an abundance of new revenues, no expense had been
   spared; and the resources of the city were entirely exhausted.
   … But, far heavier than the material losses in money, ships,
   and men, was the moral blow which had been received by Athens,
   and which was more dangerous in her case than in that of any
   other state, because her whole power was based on the fear
   inspired in the subject states, so long as they saw the fleets
   of Athens absolutely supreme at sea. The ban of this fear had
   now been removed; disturbances arose in those island-states
   which were most necessary to Athens, and whose existence
   seemed to be most indissolubly blended with that of Attica,
   —in Eubœa, Chios, and Lesbos; everywhere the oligarchical
   parties raised their head, in order to overthrow the odious
   dominion of Athens. … Sparta, on the other hand, had in the
   course of a few months, without sending out an army or
   incurring any danger or losses, secured to herself the
   greatest advantages, such as she could not have obtained from
   the most successful campaign. Gylippus had again proved the
   value of a single Spartan man: inasmuch as in the hour of the
   greatest danger his personal conduct had altered the course of
   the most important and momentous transaction of the entire
   war. He was, in a word, the more fortunate successor of
   Brasidas. The authority of Sparta in the Peloponnesus, which
   the peace of Nicias had weakened, was now restored; with the
   exception of Argos and Elis, all her allies were on amicable
   terms with her; the brethren of her race beyond the sea, who
   had hitherto held aloof, had, by the attack made by the
   Athenian invasion, been drawn into the war, and had now become
   the most zealous and ardent allies of the Peloponnesians. …
   Moreover, the Athenians had driven the most capable of all
   living statesmen and commanders into the enemy's camp. No man
   was better adapted than Alcibiades for rousing the
   slowly-moving Lacedæmonians to energetic action; and it was he
   who supplied them with the best advice, and with the most
   accurate information as to Athenian politics and localities.
   Lastly, the Spartans were at the present time under a warlike
   king, the enterprising and ambitious Agis, the son of
   Archidamus. … Nothing was now required, except pecuniary
   means. And even these now unexpectedly offered themselves to
   the Spartans, in consequence of the events which had in the
   meantime occurred in the Persian empire. … Everywhere [in
   that empire] sedition raised its head, particularly in Asia
   Minor. Pissuthnes, the son of Hystaspes, who had on several
   previous occasions interfered in Greek affairs, rose in
   revolt. He was supported by Greek soldiers, under the command
   of an Athenian of the name of Lycon. The treachery of the
   latter enabled Darius to overthrow Pissuthnes, whose son,
   Amorges, maintained himself by Athenian aid in Caria. After
   the fall of Pissuthnes, Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus appear in
   Asia Minor as the first dignitaries of the Great King.
   Tissaphernes succeeded Pissuthnes as satrap in the maritime
   provinces. He was furious at the assistance offered by Athens
   to the party of his adversary; moreover, the Great King
   (possibly in consequence of the Sicilian war and the
   destruction of the Attic fleet) demanded that the tributes
   long withheld by the coast-towns, which were still regarded as
   subject to the Persian empire, should now be levied.
   Tissaphernes was obliged to pay the sums according to the rate
   at which they were entered in the imperial budget of Persia;
   and thus, in order to reimburse himself, found himself forced
   to pursue a war policy. … Everything now depended for the
   satrap upon obtaining assistance from a Greek quarter. He
   found opportunities for this purpose in Ionia itself, in all
   the more important cities of which a Persian party existed.
   … The most important and only independent power in Ionia was
   Chios. Here the aristocratic families had with great sagacity
   contrived to retain the government. … It was their
   government which now became the focus of the conspiracy
   against Athens, in the first instance establishing a
   connection on the opposite shore with Erythræ. Hereupon
   Tissaphernes opened negotiations with both cities, and in
   conjunction with them despatched an embassy to Peloponnesus
   charged with persuading the Spartans to place themselves at
   the head of the Ionian movement, the satrap at the same time
   promising to supply pay and provisions to the Peloponnesian
   forces. The situation of Pharnabazus was the same as that of
   Tissaphernes. Pharnabazus was the satrap of the northern
   province. … Pharnabazus endeavored to outbid Tissaphernes in
   his promises; and two powerful satraps became rival suitors
   for the favor of Sparta, to whom they offered money and their
   alliance. … While thus the most dangerous combinations were
   on all sides forming against Athens, the war had already
   broken out in Greece. This time Athens had been the first to
   commence direct hostilities. … A Peloponnesian army under
   Agis invaded Attica, with the advent of the spring of B. C.
   413 (Olympiad xci. 3); at which date it was already to be
   anticipated how the Sicilian war would end. For twelve years
   Attica had been spared hostile invasions, and the vestiges of
   former wars had been effaced.
   The present devastations were therefore doubly ruinous; while
   at the same time it was now impossible to take vengeance upon
   the Peloponnesians by means of naval expeditions. And the
   worst point in the case was that they were now fully resolved,
   instead of recurring to their former method of carrying on the
   war and undertaking annual campaigns, to occupy permanently a
   fortified position on Attic soil." The invaders seized a
   strong position at Decelea, only fourteen miles northward from
   Athens, on a rocky peak of Mount Parnes, and fortified
   themselves so strongly that the Athenians ventured on no
   attempt to dislodge them. From this secure station they
   ravaged the surrounding country at pleasure. "This success was
   of such importance that even in ancient times it gave the name
   of the Decelean War to the entire last division of the
   Peloponnesian War. The occupation of Decelea forms the
   connecting link between the Sicilian War and the
   Attico-Peloponnesian, which now broke out afresh. … Its
   immediate object … it failed to effect; inasmuch as the
   Athenians did not allow it to prevent their despatching a
   fresh armament to Sicily. But when, half a year later, all was
   lost, the Athenians felt more heavily than ever the burden
   imposed upon them by the occupation of Decelea. The city was
   cut off from its most important source of supplies, since the
   enemy had in his power the roads communicating with Eubœa. …
   One-third of Attica no longer belonged to the Athenians, and
   even in the immediate vicinity of the city communication was
   unsafe; large numbers of the country-people, deprived of labor
   and means of subsistence, thronged the city; the citizens were
   forced night and day to perform the onerous duty of keeping

      E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 4, chapters 4-5 (volume 3).

      ALSO IN:
      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 61 (volume 7).

GREECE: B. C. 413-412.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Revolt of Chios, Miletus, Lesbos, and Rhodes from Athens.
   Revolution at Samos.
   Intrigues of Alcibiades for a revolution at Athens and for his
   own recall.

   "Alkibiades … persuaded the Spartans to build a fleet, and
   send it over to Asia to assist the Ionians in revolting. He
   himself crossed at once to Chios with a few ships, in order to
   begin the revolt. The government of Chios was in the hands of
   the nobles; but they had hitherto served Athens so well that
   the Athenians had not altered the government to a democracy.
   Now, however, they revolted (B. C. 413). This was a heavy blow
   to Athens, for Chios was the most powerful of the Ionian
   States, and others would be sure to follow its example.
   Miletus and Lesbos revolted in B. C. 412. The nobles of Samos
   prepared to revolt, but the people were in favour of Athens,
   and rose against the nobles, killing 200 of them, and
   banishing 400 more. Athens now made Samos its free and equal
   ally, instead of its subject, and Samos became the
   head-quarters of the Athenian fleet and army. … The
   Athenians … had now manned a fresh navy. They defeated the
   Peloponnesian and Persian fleets together at Miletus, and were
   only kept from besieging Miletus by the arrival of a fleet
   from Syracuse. [This reinforcement of the enemy held them
   powerless to prevent a revolt in Rhodes, carried out by the
   oligarchs though opposed by the people.] Alkibiades had made
   enemies among the Spartans, and when he had been some time in
   Asia Minor an order came over from Sparta to put him to death.
   He escaped to Tissaphernes, and now made up his mind to win
   back the favour of Athens by breaking up the alliance between
   Tissaphernes and the Spartans. He contrived to make a quarrel
   between them about the rate of pay, and persuaded Tissaphernes
   that it would be the best thing for Persia to let the Spartans
   and Athenians wear one another out, without giving help to
   either. Tissaphernes therefore kept the Spartans idle for
   months, always pretending that he was on the point of bringing
   up his fleet to help them. Alkibiades now sent a lying message
   to the generals of the Athenian army at Samos that he could
   get Athens the help of Tissaphernes, if the Athenians would
   allow him to return from his exile: but he said that he could
   never return while there was a democracy; so that if they
   wished for the help of Persia they must change the government
   to an oligarchy (B. C. 412). In the army at Samos there were
   many rich men willing to see an oligarchy established at
   Athens, and peace made with Sparta. … Therefore, though the
   great mass of the army at Samos was democratical, a certain
   number of powerful men agreed to the plan of Alkibiades for
   changing the government. One of the conspirators, named
   Pisander, was sent to Athens to instruct the clubs of nobles
   and rich men to work secretly for this object. In these clubs
   the overthrow of the democracy was planned. Citizens known to
   be zealous for the constitution were secretly murdered. Terror
   fell over the city, for no one except the conspirators knew
   who did, and who did not, belong to the plot; and at last,
   partly by force, the assembly was brought to abolish the
   popular government."

      C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Greece
      (History Primer),
      chapter 5, sections 36-39.

      ALSO IN:
      G. W. Cox,
      The Athenian Empire,
      chapter 6.

      book 8, chapters 4-51.

GREECE: B. C. 411-407.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Athenian victories at Cynossema and Abydos.
   Exploits of Alcibiades.
   His return to Athens and to supreme command.
   His second deposition and exile.

   While Athens was in the throes of its revolution, "the war was
   prosecuted with vigour on the coast of Asia Minor. Mindarus,
   who now commanded the Peloponnesian fleet, disgusted at length
   by the often-broken promises of Tissaphernes, and the scanty
   and irregular pay which he furnished, set sail from Miletus
   and proceeded to the Hellespont, with the intention of
   assisting the satrap Pharnabazus, and of effecting, if
   possible, the revolt of the Athenian dependencies in that
   quarter. Hither he was pursued by the Athenian fleet under
   Thrasyllus. In a few days an engagement ensued (in August, 411
   B. C.), in the famous straits between Sestos and Abydos, in
   which the Athenians, though with a smaller force, gained the
   victory, and erected a trophy on the promontory of Cynossema
   [see CYNOSSEMA] near the tomb and chapel of the Trojan queen
   Hecuba. The Athenians followed up their victory by the
   reduction of Cyzicus, which had revolted from them. A month or
   two afterward, another obstinate engagement took place between
   the Peloponnesian and Athenian fleets near Abydos, which
   lasted a whole day, and was at length decided in favour of the
   Athenians by the arrival of Alcibiades with his squadron of 18
   ships from Samos."

      W. Smith,
      Smaller History of Greece,
      chapter 13. 


   Alcibiades, although recalled, had "resolved to delay his
   return until he had performed such exploits as might throw
   fresh lustre over his name, and endear him to all classes of
   his fellow-citizens. With this ambition he sailed with a small
   squadron from Samos, and having gained information that
   Mindarus, with the Peloponnesian fleet, had gone in pursuit of
   the Athenian navy, he hastened to afford his countrymen
   succour. Happily he arrived at the scene of action, near
   Abydos, at a most critical moment; when, after a severe
   engagement, the Spartans had on one side obtained an
   advantage, and were pursuing the broken lines of the
   Athenians. … He speedily decided the fortune of the day,
   completely routed the Spartans, … broke many of their ships
   in pieces, and took 30 from them. … His vanity after this
   signal success had, however, nearly destroyed him; for, being
   desirous of appearing to Tissaphernes as a conqueror instead
   of a fugitive, he hastened with a splendid retinue to visit
   him, when the crafty barbarian, thinking he should thus
   appease the suspicions of the Spartans, caused him to be
   arrested and confined in prison at Sardis. Hence, however, he
   found means to escape. … He sailed immediately for the
   Athenian camp to diffuse fresh animation among the soldiers,
   and induce them hastily to embark on an expedition against
   Mindarus and Pharnabazus, who were then with the residue of
   the Peloponnesian fleet at Cyzicum" (Cyzicus). Mindarus was
   defeated and killed and Pharnabazus driven to flight (B. C.
   410). "Alcibiades pursued his victory, took Cyzicum without
   difficulty, and, staining his conquest with a cruelty with
   which he was not generally chargeable, put to death all the
   Peloponnesians whom he found within the city. A very short
   space of time elapsed after this brilliant success before
   Alcibiades found another occasion to deserve the gratitude of
   Athens," by defeating Pharnabazus, who had attacked the troops
   of Thrasyllus while they were wasting the territory of Abydos.
   He next reduced Chalcedon, bringing it back into the Athenian
   alliance, and once more defeating Pharnabazus, when the
   Persian satrap attempted to relieve the town. He also
   recovered Selymbria, and took Byzantium (which had revolted)
   after a severe fight (B. C. 408). "Alcibiades having raised
   the fortunes of his country from the lowest state of
   depression, not only by his brilliant victories, but his
   conciliating policy, prepared to return and enjoy the praise
   of his successes. He entered the Piræus [B. C. 407] in a
   galley adorned with the spoils of numerous victories, followed
   by a long line of ships which he had taken from the foe. …
   The whole city came down to the harbour to see and welcome
   him, and took no notice of Thrasybulus or Theramenes, his
   fellow-commanders. … An assembly of the people being
   convened, he addressed them in a gentle and modest speech,
   imputing his calamities not to their envy, but to some evil
   genius which pursued him. He exhorted them to take courage,
   bade them oppose their enemies with all the fresh inspiration
   of their zeal, and taught them to hope for happier days.
   Delighted with these assurances, they presented him with a
   crown of brass and gold, which never was before given to any
   but the Olympic victors, invested him with absolute control
   over their naval and military affairs, restored to him his
   confiscated wealth, and ordered the ministers of religion to
   absolve him from the curses which they had denounced against
   him. Theodorus, however, the high-priest, evaded the last part
   of the decree, by alleging that he had never cast any
   imprecation on him, if he had committed no offence against the
   republic. The tablets on which the curses against him had been
   inscribed were taken to the shore, and thrown with eagerness
   into the sea. His next measure heightened, if possible, the
   brief lustre of his triumph. In consequence of the
   fortification of Decelea by the Lacedæmonians, and their
   having possession of the passes of the country, the procession
   to Eleusis, in honour of Athene, had been long unable to take
   its usual course, and being conducted by sea, had lost many of
   its solemn and august ceremonials. He now, therefore, offered
   to conduct the solemnity by land. … His proposal being
   gladly accepted, he placed sentinels on the hills; and,
   surrounding the consecrated band with his soldiers, conducted
   the whole to Eleusis and back to Athens, without the slightest
   opposition, or breach of that order and profound stillness
   which he had exhorted the troops to maintain. After this
   graceful act of homage to the religion he was once accused of
   destroying, he was regarded by the common people as something
   more than human; they looked on him as destined never to know
   defeat, and believed their triumph was certain so long as he
   was their commander. But, in the very height of his
   popularity, causes of a second exile were maturing. The great
   envied him in proportion to the people's confidence, and that
   confidence itself became the means of his ruin: for, as the
   people really thought the spell of invincibility was upon him,
   they were prepared to attribute the least pause in his career
   of glory to a treacherous design. He departed with a hundred
   vessels, manned under his inspection, with colleagues of his
   own choice, to reduce the isle of Chios to obedience. At
   Andros he once more gained a victory over both the natives and
   the Spartans, who attempted to assist them. But, on his
   arrival at the chief scene of action, he found that he would
   be unable to keep the soldiers from deserting, unless he could
   raise money to pay them sums more nearly equal to those which
   the Lacedæmonians offered, than the pay he was able to bestow.
   He was compelled, therefore, to leave the fleet [at Notium]
   and go into Caria in order to obtain supplies. While absent on
   this occasion, he left Antiochus in the command. … To this
   officer Alcibiades gave express directions that he should
   refrain from coming to an engagement, whatever provocations he
   might receive. Anxious, however, to display his bravery,
   Antiochus took the first occasion to sail out in front of the
   Lacedæmonian fleet, which lay near Ephesus, under the command
   of Lysander, and attempt, by insults, to incite them to attack
   him. Lysander accordingly pursued him; the fleets came to the
   support of their respective admirals, and a general engagement
   ensued, in which Antiochus was slain, and the Athenians
   completely defeated. On receiving intelligence of this unhappy
   reverse, Alcibiades hastened to the fleet, and eager to repair
   the misfortune, offered battle to the Spartans; Lysander,
   however, did not choose to risk the loss of his advantage by
   accepting the challenge, and the Athenians were compelled to
   retire. This event, for which no blame really attached to
   Alcibiades, completed the ruin of his influence at Athens.
   It was believed that this, the first instance of his failure,
   must have arisen from corruption, or, at least, from a want of
   inclination to serve his country. He was also accused of
   leaving the navy under the direction of those who had no other
   recommendation to the charge but having been sharers in his
   luxurious banquets, and of having wandered about to indulge in
   profligate excesses. … On these grounds, the people in his
   absence took from him his command, and confided it to other
   generals. As soon as he heard of this new act of ingratitude,
   he resolved not to return home, but withdrew into Thrace, and
   fortified three castles … near to Perinthus. Here, having
   collected a formidable band, as an independent captain, he
   made incursions on the territories of those of the Thracians
   who acknowledged no settled form of government, and acquired
   considerable spoils."

      Sir T. N. Talfourd,
      Early History of Greece (Encyclopedia Metropolitana),
      chapter 11.

      ALSO IN:
      C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 29 (volume 4).


      book 1, chapters 1-4.

GREECE: B. C. 406.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Battle of Arginusæ.
   Trial and execution of the generals at Athens.

   Alcibiades was succeeded by Conon and nine colleagues in
   command of the Athenian fleet on the coast of Asia Minor. The
   Athenians, soon afterwards, were driven into the harbor of
   Mitylene, on the island of Lesbos, by a superior Peloponnesian
   fleet, commanded by Callicratidas, and were blockaded there
   with small chance of escape. Conon contrived to send news of
   their desperate situation to Athens, and vigorous measures
   were promptly taken to rescue the fleet and to save Mitylene.
   Within thirty days, a fleet of 110 triremes was fitted out at
   the Piræus, and manned with a crew which took nearly the last
   able-bodied Athenian to make it complete. At Samos these were
   joined by 40 more triremes, making 150 in all, against which
   Callicratidas was able to bring out only 120 ships from
   Mitylene, when the relieving armament approached. The two
   fleets encountered one another near the islands of Arginusæ,
   off Cape Malea, the southern promontory of Lesbos. In the
   battle that ensued, which was the greatest naval conflict of
   the Peloponnesian War, the Athenians were completely
   victorious; Callicratidas was drowned and no less than 77 of
   the Peloponnesian ships were destroyed, while the Athenians
   themselves lost 25. As the result of this battle Sparta again
   made overtures of peace, as she had done after the battle of
   Cyzicus, and Athens, led by her demagogues, again rejected
   them. But the Athenian demagogues and populace did worse. They
   summoned home the eight generals who had won the battle of
   Arginusæ, to answer to a charge of having neglected, after the
   victory, to pick up the floating bodies of the Athenian dead
   and to rescue the drowning from the wrecked ships of their
   fleet. Six of the accused generals came home to meet the
   charge; but two thought it prudent to go into voluntary exile.
   The six were brought to trial; the forms of legality were
   violated to their prejudice and all means were unscrupulously
   employed to work up the popular passion against them. One man,
   only, among the prytanes—senators, that is, of the tribe then
   presiding, and who were the presidents of the popular
   assembly—stood out, without flinching, against the lawless
   rage of his fellow citizens, and refused, in calm scorn of all
   fierce threats against himself, to join in taking the
   unconstitutional vote. That one was the philosopher Socrates.
   The generals were condemned to death and received the fatal
   draught of hemlock from the same populace which pressed it a
   little later to the lips of the philosopher. "Thus died the
   son of Pericles and Aspasia [one of the generals, who bore his
   father's name], to whom his father had made a fatal gift in
   obtaining for him the Attic citizenship, and with him
   Erasinides, Thrasylus, Lysias, Aristocrates, and Diomedon. The
   last-named, the most innocent of all, who had wished that the
   whole fleet should immediately be employed in search of the
   wrecked, addressed the people once more; he expressed a wish
   that the decree dooming him to death might be beneficial to
   the state, and called upon his fellow-citizens to perform the
   thanksgiving offerings to the saving gods which they, the
   generals, had vowed on account of their victory. These words
   may have sunk deep into the hearts of many of his hearers; but
   their only effect has been to cast a yet brighter halo in the
   eyes of subsequent generations around the memory of these
   martyrs. Their innocence is best proved by the series of
   glaring infractions of law and morality which were needed to
   ensure their destruction, as well as by the shame and
   repugnance which seized upon the citizens, when they had
   recognized how fearfully, they had been led astray by a
   traitorous faction.

      E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 4, chapter 5 (volume 3).

   Mr. Grote attempts to uphold a view more unfavorable to the
   generals and less severe upon the Athenian people.

      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 64.

      ALSO IN:
      book 1, chapters 5-7.

      See, also,
      ATHENS: B. C. 424-406.

GREECE: B. C. 405.
   The Peloponnesian War
   Decisive battle of Aigospotamoi.
   Defeat of the Athenians.

   After the execution of the generals, "no long time passed
   before the Athenians repented of their madness and their
   crimes: but, yielding still to their old besetting sin, they
   insisted, as they had done in the days of Miltiades and after
   the catastrophe at Syracuse, on throwing the blame not on
   themselves but on their advisers. This great crime began at
   once to produce its natural fruits. The people were losing
   confidence in their officers, who, in their turn, felt that no
   services to the state could secure them against illegal
   prosecutions and arbitrary penalties. Corruption was eating
   its way into the heart of the state, and treason was losing
   its ugliness in the eyes of many who thought themselves none
   the worse for dallying with it. … The Athenian fleet had
   fallen back upon Samos; and with this island as a base, the
   generals were occupying themselves with movements, not for
   crushing the enemy, but for obtaining money. … The Spartans,
   whether at home or on the Asiatic coast, were now well aware
   that one more battle would decide the issue of the war; for
   with another defeat the subsidies of the Persians would be
   withdrawn from them as from men doomed to failure, and perhaps
   be transferred to the Athenians. In the army and fleet the cry
   was raised that Lysandros was the only man equal to the
   emergency. Spartan custom could not appoint the same man twice
   to the office of admiral; but when Arakos was sent out with
   Lysandros [Lysander] as his secretary, it was understood that
   the latter was really the man in power."
   In the summer of 405 B. C. Lysandros made a sudden movement
   from the southern Ægean to the Hellespont, and laid siege to
   the rich town of Lampsacus, on the Asiatic side. The Athenians
   followed him, but not promptly enough to save Lampsacus, which
   they found in his possession when they arrived. They took
   their station, thereupon, at the mouth of the little stream
   called the Aigospotamoi (the Goat's Stream), directly opposite
   to Lampsacus, and endeavored for four successive days to
   provoke Lysandros to fight. He refused, watching his
   opportunity for the surprise which he effected on the fifth
   day, when he dashed across the narrow channel and caught the
   Athenian ships unprepared, their crews mostly scattered on
   shore. One only, of the six Athenian generals, Conon, had
   foreseen danger and was alert. Conon, with twelve triremes,
   escaped. The remaining ships, about one hundred and seventy in
   number, were captured almost without the loss of a man on the
   Peloponnesian side. Of the crews, some three or four thousand
   Athenians were pursued on shore and taken prisoners, to be
   afterwards slaughtered in cold blood. Two of the incapable
   generals shared their fate. Of the other generals who escaped,
   some at least were believed to have been bribed by Lysandros
   to betray the fleet into his hands. The blow to Athens was
   deadly. She had no power of resistance left, and when her
   enemies closed around her, a little later, she starved within
   her walls until resistance seemed no longer heroic, and then
   gave herself up to their mercy.

      G. W. Cox,
      The Athenian Empire,
      chapter 7.

      ALSO IN:
      C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 30 (volume 4).


      book 2, chapter 1.

GREECE: B. C. 404.
   End of the Peloponnesian War.
   Fall of Athens.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 404.

GREECE: B. C. 404-403.
   The Year of Anarchy at Athens.
   Reign of the Thirty.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

GREECE: B. C. 401-400.
   The expedition of Cyrus, and the Retreat of the Ten Thousand

      See PERSIA: B. C.,401-400.

GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
   Spartan war with Persia.
   Greek confederacy against Sparta.
   The Corinthian War.
   Peace of Antalcidas.

   The successful retreat of the Ten Thousand from Cunaxa,
   through the length of the Persian dominions (B. C. 401-400),
   and the account which they brought of the essential hollowness
   of the power of the Great King, produced an important change
   among the Greeks in their estimate of the Persian monarchy as
   an enemy to be feared. Sparta became ashamed of having
   abandoned the Greek cities of Asia Minor to their old
   oppressors, as she did after breaking the strength of their
   protector, Athens, in the Peloponnesian War. When, therefore,
   the Persians began to lay siege to the coast cities which
   resisted them, Sparta found spirit enough to interfere (B. C.
   399) and sent over a small army, into which the surviving
   Cyreans were also enlisted. The only immediate result was a
   truce with the Persian satrap. But, meantime, the Athenian
   general Conon—he who escaped with a few triremes from
   Ægospotami and fled to Cyprus—had there established relations
   with the Persian court at Susa and had acquired a great
   influence, which he used to bring about the creation of a
   powerful Persian armament against Sparta, himself in command.
   The news of this armament, reaching Sparta, provoked the
   latter to a more vigorous prosecution of the war in Asia
   Minor. King Agesilaus took the field in Ionia with a strong
   army and conducted two brilliant campaigns (B. C. 396-395),
   pointing the way, as it were, to the expedition of Alexander a
   couple of generations later. The most important victory won
   was on the Pactolus, not far from Sardis. But, in the midst of
   his successes, Agesilaus was called home by troubles which
   arose in Greece. Sparta, by her arrogance and oppressive
   policy, had already alienated all the Greek states which
   helped her to break down Athens in the Peloponnesian War.
   Persian agents, with money, had assisted her enemies to
   organize a league against her. Thebes and Athens, first, then
   Argos and Corinth, with several of the lesser states, became
   confederated in an agreement to overthrow her domination. In
   an attempt to crush Thebes, the Spartans were badly beaten at
   Haliartus (B. C. 395), where their famous Lysander, conqueror
   of Athens, was killed. Their power in central and northern
   Greece was virtually annihilated, and then followed a struggle
   with their leagued enemies for the control or the Corinthian
   isthmus, whence came the name of the Corinthian War. It was
   this situation of things at home which called back King
   Agesilaus from his campaigns in Asia Minor. He had scarcely
   crossed the Hellespont on his return, in July B. C. 394,
   before all his work in Asia was undone by an overwhelming
   naval victory achieved at Cnydus by the Athenian Conon,
   commanding the Persian-Phœnician fleet. With his veteran army,
   including the old Cyreans, now returning home after seven
   years of incredible adventures and hardships, he made his way
   through all enemies into Bœotia and fought a battle with the
   league at Coronea, in which he so far gained a victory that he
   held the field, although the fruits of it were doubtful. The
   Spartans on the isthmus had also just gained a considerable
   success near Corinth, on the banks of the Nemea. On the whole,
   the results of the war were in their favor, until Conon and
   the Persian satrap, Pharnabazus, came over with the victorious
   fleet from Cnydus and lent its aid to the league. The most
   important proceeding of Conon was to rebuild (B. C. 393), with
   the help of his Persian friends, the Long Walls of Athens,
   which the Peloponnesians had required to be thrown down eleven
   years before. By this means he restored to Athens her
   independence and secured for her a new career of commercial
   prosperity. During six years more the war was tediously
   prolonged, without important or decisive events, while Sparta
   intrigued to detach the Persian king from his Athenian allies
   and the latter intrigued to retain his friendship. In the end,
   all parties were exhausted—Sparta, perhaps, least so—and
   accepted a shameful peace which was practically dictated by
   the Persian and had the form of an edict or mandate from Susa,
   in the following terms: "The king, Artaxerxes, deems it just
   that the cities in Asia, with the islands of Clazomenae and
   Cyprus, should belong to himself; the rest of the Hellenic
   cities he thinks it just to leave independent, both small and
   great, with the exception of Lemnos, Imbros, and Scyros, which
   three are to belong to Athens as of yore. Should any of the
   parties concerned not accept this peace, I, Artaxerxes, will
   war against him or them with those who share my views.
   This will I do by land and by sea, with ships and with money."
   By this, called the Peace of Antalcidas (B. C. 387) from the
   Lacedæmonian who was instrumental in bringing it about, the
   Ionian Greeks were once more abandoned to the Persian king and
   his satraps, while Sparta, which assumed to be the
   administrator and executor of the treaty, was confirmed in her
   supremacy over the other Grecian states.

      Hellenica (translated by Dakyns),
      books 3-5 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      C. Sankey,
      The Spartan and Theban Supremacies,
      chapters 7-9.

      W. Mitford,
      History of Greece,
      chapters 24-25 (volume 4).

      G. Rawlinson,
      The Five Great Monarchies,
      volume 3; Persia, chapter 7.

GREECE: B. C. 385.
   Destruction of Mantinea by the Spartans.

   The Mantineians, having displayed unfriendliness to Sparta
   during the Corinthian War, were required by the latter, after
   the Peace of Antalcidas, to demolish their walls. On their
   refusal, king Agesipolis was sent to subdue them. By damming
   up the waters of the river Ophis he flooded the city and
   brought it to terms. "The city of Mantineia was now broken up,
   and the inhabitants were distributed again into the five
   constituent villages. Out of four-fifths of the population
   each man pulled down his house in the city, and rebuilt it in
   the village near to which his property lay. The remaining
   fifth continued to occupy Mantineia as a village. Each village
   was placed under oligarchical government and left

      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 76 (volume 9).

      ALSO IN:
      book 5, chapter 2.

GREECE: B. C. 383.
   The betrayal of Thebes to the Spartans.

   When the Spartans sent their expedition against Olynthus, in
   383 B. C., it marched in two divisions, the last of which,
   under Phoebidas, halted at Thebes, on the way, probably having
   secret orders to do so. "On reaching Thebes the troops
   encamped outside the city, round the gymnasium. Faction was
   rife within the city. The two polemarchs in office, Ismenias
   and Leontiades, were diametrically opposed, being the
   respective heads of antagonistic political clubs. Hence it was
   that, while Ismenias, ever inspired by hatred to the
   Lacedaemonians, would not come anywhere near the Spartan
   general, Leontiades, on the other hand, was assiduous in
   courting him; and when a sufficient intimacy was established
   between them, he made a proposal as follows: 'You have it in
   your power,' he said, addressing Phoebidas, 'this very day to
   confer supreme benefit on your country. Follow me with your
   hoplites, and I will introduce you into the citadel.'"

      (translated by Dakyns),
      book 5, chapter 2 (volume 2).

   "On the day of the Thesmophoria, a religious festival
   celebrated by the women apart from the men, during which the
   acropolis, or Kadmeia, was consecrated to their exclusive use,
   Phœbidas, affecting to have concluded his halt, put himself in
   march to proceed as if towards Thrace; seemingly rounding the
   walls of Thebes, but not going into it. The Senate was
   actually assembled in the portico of the agora, and the heat
   of a summer's noon had driven everyone out of the streets,
   when Leontiades, stealing away from the Senate, hastened on
   horseback to overtake Phœbidas, caused him to face about, and
   conducted the Lacedæmonians straight up to the Kadmeia; the
   gates of which, as well as those of the town, were opened to
   his order as Polemarch. There were not only no citizens in the
   streets, but none even in the Kadmeia; no male person being
   permitted to be present at the feminine Thesmophoria; so that
   Phœbidas and his army became possessed of the Kadmeia without
   the smallest opposition. … The news of the seizure of the
   Kadmeia and of the revolution at Thebes [was] … received at
   Sparta with the greatest surprise, as well as with a mixed
   feeling of shame and satisfaction. Everywhere throughout
   Greece, probably, it excited a greater sensation than any
   event since the battle of Ægospotami. Tried by the recognised
   public law of Greece, it was a flagitions iniquity, for which
   Sparta had not the shadow of a pretence. … It stood
   condemned by the indignant sentiment of all Greece,
   unwillingly testified even by the philo-Laconian Xenophon
   himself. But it was at the same time an immense accession to
   Spartan power. … Phœbidas might well claim to have struck
   for Sparta the most important blow since Ægospotami, relieving
   her from one of her two really formidable enemies."

      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 76.

      ALSO IN:
      C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 37 (volume 5).

GREECE: B. C. 383-379.
   Overthrow of the Olynthian confederacy by Sparta.

   Among the Greek cities which were founded at an early day in
   that peninsula of Macedonia called Chalcidice, from Chalcis,
   in Eubœa, which colonized the greater number of them, Olynthus
   became the most important. It long maintained its independence
   against the Macedonian kings, on one hand, and against Athens,
   when Athens ruled the Ægean and its coasts, on the other. As
   it grew in power, it took under its protection the lesser
   towns of the peninsula and adjacent Macedonia, and formed a
   confederacy among them, which gradually extended to the larger
   cities and acquired a formidable character. But two of the
   Chalcidian cities watched this growth of Olynthus with
   jealousy and refused to be confederated with her. More than
   that, they joined the Macedonians in sending an embassy (B. C.
   383) to Sparta, then all-powerful in Greece, after the Peace
   of Antalcidas, and invoked her intervention, to suppress the
   rising Olynthian confederacy. The response of Sparta was
   prompt, and although the Olynthians defended themselves with
   valor, inflicting one severe defeat upon the Lacedæmonian
   allies, they were forced at last (B. C. 379) to submit and the
   confederacy was dissolved. "By the peace of Antalkidas, Sparta
   had surrendered the Asiatic Greeks to Persia; by crushing the
   Olynthian confederacy, she virtually surrendered the Thracian
   Greeks to the Macedonian princes. … She gave the victory to
   Amyntas [king of Macedonia], and prepared the indispensable
   basis upon which his son Philip afterwards rose, to reduce not
   only Olynthus, but … the major part of the Grecian world, to
   one common level of subjection."

      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 76 (volume 9).

      ALSO IN:
      E. A. Freeman,
      History of Federal Government,
      chapter 4, section 3.

GREECE: B. C. 379-371.
   The liberation of Thebes and her rise to supremacy.
   The humbling of Sparta.

   For three years after the betrayal of the Acropolis, or
   Cadmea, of Thebes to the Spartans, the city groaned under the
   tyranny of the oligarchical party of Leontiades, whom the
   Spartans supported. Several hundreds of the more prominent of
   the democratic and patriotic party found a refuge at Athens,
   and the deliverance of Thebes was effected at last, about
   December, B. C. 379, by a daring enterprise on the part of
   some of these exiles.
   Their plans were concerted with friends at Thebes, especially
   with one Phyllidas, who had retained the confidence of the
   party in power, being secretary to the polemarchs. The leader
   of the undertaking was Melon. "After a certain interval Melon,
   accompanied by six of the trustiest comrades he could find
   among his fellow-exiles, set off for Thebes. They were armed
   with nothing but daggers, and first of all crept into the
   neighbourhood under cover of night. The whole of the next day
   they lay concealed in a desert place, and drew near to the
   city gates in the guise of labourers returning home with the
   latest comers from the fields. Having got safely within the
   city, they spent the whole of that night at the house of a man
   named Charon, and again the next day in the same fashion.
   Phyllidas meanwhile was busily taken up with the concerns of
   the polemarchs, who were to celebrate a feast of Aphrodite on
   going out of office. Amongst other things, the secretary was
   to take this opportunity of fulfilling an old undertaking,
   which was the introduction of certain women to the polemarchs.
   They were to be the most majestic and the most beautiful to be
   found in Thebes. … Supper was over, and, thanks to the zeal
   with which the master of the ceremonies responded to their
   mood, they were speedily intoxicated. To their oft-repeated
   orders to introduce their mistresses, he went out and fetched
   Melon and the rest, three of them dressed up as ladies and the
   rest as their attendant maidens. … It was preconcerted that
   as soon as they were seated they were to throw aside their
   veils and strike home. That is one version of the death of the
   polemarchs. According to another, Melon and his friends came
   in as revellers, and so despatched their victims."

      (translated by Dakyns),
      book 5, chapter 4.

   Having thus made way with the polemarchs, the conspirators
   surprised Leontiades in his own house and slew him. They then
   liberated and armed the prisoners whom they found in
   confinement and sent heralds through the city to proclaim the
   freedom of Thebes. A general rally of the citizens followed
   promptly. The party of the oppression was totally crushed and
   its prominent members put to death. The Spartan garrison in
   the Cadmea capitulated and was suffered to march out without
   molestation. The government of Thebes was reorganized on a
   more popular basis, and with a view to restoring the Bœotian
   League, in a perfected state, with Thebes for its head.

      See THEBES: B. C. 378.

   In the war with Sparta which followed, Athens was soon
   involved, and the Spartans were driven from all their
   footholds in the Bœotian towns. Then Athens and Thebes
   quarreled afresh, and the Spartans, to take advantage of the
   isolation of the latter, invaded her territory once more. But
   Thebes, under the training of her great statesman and soldier,
   Epaminondas, had become strong enough to face her Lacedæmonian
   enemy without help, and in the momentous battle of Leuctra,
   fought July 6, B. C. 371, on a plain not far from Platæa, the
   domineering power of Sparta was broken forever. "It was the
   most important of all the battles ever fought between Greeks.
   On this day Thebes became an independent power in Greece, and
   a return of Spartan despotism was henceforth impossible for
   all times."

      E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 6, chapter 1 (volume 4).

      ALSO IN:

      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapters 77-78.

      C. Sankey,
      The Spartan and Theban Supremacies,
      chapters 10-11.

GREECE: B. C. 378-357.
   The new Athenian Confederacy.
   The Social War.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 378-357.

GREECE: B. C. 371.
   The Arcadian union.
   Restoration of Mantinea.
   Building of Megalopolis.

   One of the first effects of the battle of Leuctra (B. C. 371),
   which ended the domination of Sparta in Greek affairs, was to
   emancipate the Arcadians and to work great changes among them.
   Mantinea, which the Spartans had destroyed, was rebuilt the
   same year. Then "the chiefs of the parties opposed to the
   Spartan interest in the principal Arcadian towns concerted a
   plan for securing the independence of Arcadia, and for raising
   it to a higher rank than it had hitherto held in the political
   system of Greece. With a territory more extensive than any
   other region of Peloponnesus, peopled by a hardy race, proud
   of its ancient origin and immemorial possession of the land,
   and of its peculiar religious traditions, Arcadia—the Greek
   Switzerland—had never possessed any weight in the affairs of
   the nation; the land only served as a thoroughfare for hostile
   armies, and sent forth its sons to recruit the forces of
   foreign powers. … The object was to unite the Arcadian
   people in one body, yet so as not to destroy the independence
   of the particular states; and with this view it was proposed
   to found a metropolis, to institute a national council which
   should be invested with supreme authority in foreign affairs,
   particularly with regard to peace and war, and to establish a
   military force for the protection of the public safety. …
   Within a few months after the battle of Leuctra, a meeting of
   Arcadians from all the principal towns was held to deliberate
   on the measure; and under its decree a body of colonists,
   collected from various quarters, proceeded to found a new
   city, which was to be the seat of the general government, and
   was called Megalepolis, or Megalopolis (the Great City). The
   site chosen was on the banks of the Helisson, a small stream
   tributary to the Alpheus. … The city was designed on a very
   large scale, and the magnitude of the public buildings
   corresponded to its extent; the theatre was the most spacious
   in Greece. … The population was to be drawn … from a great
   number of the most ancient Arcadian towns. Pausanias gives a
   list of forty which were required to contribute to it. The
   greater part of them appear to have been entirely deserted by
   their inhabitants."

      C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 39 (volume 5).

   "The patriotic enthusiasm, however, out of which Megalopolis
   had first arisen, gradually became enfeebled. The city never
   attained that preeminence or power which its founders
   contemplated, and which had caused the city to be laid out on
   a scale too large for the population actually inhabiting it."

      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 78.

GREECE: B. C. 371-362.
   Popular fury in Argos.
   Arcadian union and disunion.
   Restoration of Mantinea.
   Expeditions of Epaminondas into Peloponnesus.
   His attempts against Sparta.
   His victory and death at Mantinea.

   "In many of the Peloponnesian cities, when the power of Sparta
   seemed visibly on the wane, internal commotions had arisen, and
   much blood had been shed on both sides. But now Argos
   displayed the most fearful example of popular fury recorded in
   Greek annals, red as they are with tales of civil bloodshed.
   The democratic populace detected a conspiracy among the
   oligarchs, and thirty of the chief citizens were at once put
   to death. The excitement of the people was inflamed by the
   harangues of demagogues, and the mob, arming itself with
   cudgels, commenced a general massacre. When 1,200 citizens had
   fallen, the popular orators interfered to check the
   atrocities, but met with the same fate; and, sated at length
   with bloodshed, the multitude stayed the deadly work. But
   where the pressure of Spartan interference had been heaviest
   and most constant, there the reaction was naturally most
   striking. The popular impulses which were at work in Arkadia
   [see above] found their first outlet in the rebuilding of
   Mantineia." But there was far from unanimity in the Arkadian
   national movement. "In Tegea … public opinion was divided.
   The city had been treated by Sparta with special
   consideration, and had for centuries been her faithful ally;
   hence the oligarchical government looked with disfavour upon
   the project of union. But the democratical party was powerful
   and unscrupulous; and, with the help of the Mantineians, they
   effected a revolution, in which many were killed, and 800
   exiles fled to Sparta." The Spartans, under Agesilaos, avenged
   them by ravaging the plain in front of Mantineia. "This
   invasion of Arkadia is chiefly important for the pretext which
   it furnished for Theban intervention. The Mantineians applied
   for help at first to Athens, and, meeting with a refusal, went
   on to Thebes. For this request Epameinondas must have been
   thoroughly prepared beforehand, and he was soon on the march
   with a powerful army. … On his arrival in the Peloponnese
   [B. C. 370], he found that Agesilaos had already retired; and
   some of the Theban generals, considering the season of the
   year, wished at once to return." But Epameinondas was
   persuaded by the allies of Thebes to make an attempt upon
   Sparta itself. "In four divisions the invading host streamed
   into the land which, according to the proudest boast of its
   inhabitants, had felt no hostile tread for 600 years. At
   Sellasia, not ten miles distant from Sparta, the army
   reunited; and, having plundered and burnt the town, swept down
   into the valley of the Eurotas, and marched along the left
   bank till it reached the bridge opposite the city. Within
   Sparta itself, though a universal terror prevailed, one man
   rose equal to the emergency. While the men fainted in spirit
   as they thought how few they were, and how wide their unwalled
   city, … Agesilaos accepted, not without mistrust, the
   services of 6,000 helots, collected reinforcements, preserved
   order, suppressed conspiracy, stamped out mutiny, posted
   guards on every vantage-ground, and refused to be tempted to a
   battle by the taunts of foes or the clamours of over-eager
   friends. … After one unsuccessful cavalry skirmish, the
   Theban general, who, in a campaign undertaken on his sole
   responsibility, dared not risk the chance of defeat, decided
   to leave the 'wasps'-nest' untaken. He completed his work of
   devastation by ravaging the whole of southern Lakonia, … and
   then turned back into Arkadia to devote himself to the more
   permanent objects of his expedition." Messene was now rebuilt
   (see MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD), and "the descendants of the
   old Messenian stock were gathered to form a new nation from
   Rhegion and Messene [Sicily], and from the parts of Lybia
   round Kyrene. … By thus restoring the Messenians to their
   ancient territory, Epameinondas deprived Sparta at one blow of
   nearly half her possessions. … At last Epameinondas had done
   his work; and, leaving Pammenes with a garrison in Tegea, he
   hastened to lead his soldiers home. At the Isthmus he found a
   hostile army from Athens," which had been persuaded to send
   succor to Sparta; but the Athenians did not care to give
   battle to the conquering Thebans, and the latter passed
   unopposed. On the arrival of Epameinondas at Thebes, "the
   leaders of a petty faction threatened to bring him and his
   colleagues to trial for retaining their command for four
   months beyond the legal term of office. But Epameinondas stood
   up in the assembly, and told his simple tale of victorious
   generalship and still more triumphant statesmanship; and the
   invidious cavils of snarling intriguers were at once
   forgotten." Sparta and Athens now formed an alliance, with the
   senseless agreement that command of the common forces "should
   be given alternately to each state for five days. … The
   first aim of the confederates was to occupy the passes of the
   isthmus," but Epameinondas forced a passage for his army,
   captured Sikyon, ravaged the territory of Epidauros, and made
   a bold but unsuccessful attempt to surprise Corinth. Then, on
   the arrival of reinforcements to the Spartans from Syracuse,
   he drew back to Thebes (B. C. 368). For a time the Thebans
   were occupied with troubles in Thessaly, and their Arkadian
   proteges in Peloponnese were carrying on war against Sparta
   independently, with so much momentary success that they became
   over-confident and rash. They paid for their foolhardiness by
   a frightful defeat, which cost them 10,000 men, whilst no
   Spartan is said to have fallen; hence the fight was known in
   Sparta as the Tearless Battle. "This defeat probably caused
   little grief at Thebes, for it would prove to the arrogant
   Arkadians that they could not yet dispense with Theban aid;
   and it decided Epameinondas to make a third expedition into
   the Peloponnese." The result of his third expedition was the
   enrolment of a number of Achaian cities as Theban allies,
   which gave to Thebes "the control of the coast-line of the
   Corinthian gulf." But the broad and statesmanlike terms on
   which Epameinondas arranged these alliances were set aside by
   his narrow-minded fellow citizens, and a policy adopted by
   which Achaia was "converted from a lukewarm neutral into an
   enthusiastic supporter of Sparta. In this unsettled state of
   Greek politics the Thebans resolved to have recourse, like the
   Spartans before them, to the authority of the Great King.
   Existing treaties, for which they were not responsible,
   acknowledged his right to interfere in the internal affairs of
   Greece." Pelopidas and other envoys were accordingly sent to
   Susa (E. C. 366), where they procured from Artaxerxes a
   rescript "which recognised the independence of Messene and
   ordered the Athenians to dismantle their fleet." But the
   mandate of the Great King proved void of effect. "After this
   the confusion in Greece grew infinitely worse. An accident
   transferred the town of Oropos … from the hands of Athens to
   those of Thebes; and as the Peloponnesian allies of the
   Athenians refused to help them to regain it, they broke with
   them, and, in spite of the efforts of Epameinondas, formed an
   alliance with Arkadia. …
   The Athenians made soon after a vain attempt to seize the
   friendly city of Corinth, and the disgusted Corinthians,
   together with the citizens of Epidauros and Phlious, …
   obtained the grudging consent of Sparta, and made a separate
   peace with Thebes. As soon as tranquillity was restored in one
   quarter, in another the flame of war would again burst forth."
   Its next outbreak (B. C. 365) was between Elis and Arkadia,
   the former being assisted by Sparta, and its principal event
   was a desperate battle fought for the possession of Olympia.
   The Arkadians held part of the city and acquired possession of
   the sacred treasures in the Olympian temple, which they
   determined to apply to the expenses of the war. "Raising the
   cry of sacrilege, the Mantineians, who were jealous both of
   Tegea and Megalopolis, at once broke loose and shut their
   gates." Soon afterwards, Mantineia separated herself wholly
   from the Arkadian confederacy and entered the Spartan
   alliance. This was among the causes which drew Epameinondas
   once more, and for the last time, into the Peloponnese (B. C.
   362). "The armies of Greece were now gathering from all
   quarters for the great struggle. On the one side stood Sparta,
   Athens, Elis, Achaia, and a part of Arkadia, led by Mantineia;
   on the other side were ranged Boiotia [Thebes], Argos,
   Messenia, and the rest of Arkadia, while a few of the smaller
   states—as Phokis, Phlious, and Corinth—remained neutral."
   At the outset of his campaign, Epameinondas made a bold
   attempt, by a rapid night march, to surprise Sparta; but a
   traitorous warning had been given, the Spartans were
   barricaded and prepared for defence, and the undertaking
   failed. Then he marched quickly to Mantineia, and failed in
   his design there, likewise. A pitched battle was necessary to
   decide the issue, and it was fought on the plain between
   Mantineia and Tegea, on the 3d day of July, B. C. 362. The
   fine discipline of the Theban troops and the skilful tactics
   of Epameinondas had given the victory into his hands, when,
   "suddenly, the aspect of the battle changed. Except among the
   light troops on the extreme right, the advance was everywhere
   stayed. The Spartan hoplites were in full flight, but the
   conquerors did not stir a step in the pursuit. … The fury of
   the battle had instantly ceased. … Epameinondas had fallen
   wounded to death, and this was the result. … Every heart was
   broken, every arm paralysed. … Both sides claimed the
   victory in the battle, and erected the usual trophies, but the
   real advantage remained with the Thebans. … By the peace
   that ensued, the independence of Messenia was secured, and
   Megalopolis and the Pan-Arkadian constitution were preserved
   from destruction. The work of Epameinondas, though cut short,
   was thus not thrown away; and the power of Sparta was confined
   within the limits which he had assigned."

      C. Sankey,
      The Spartan and Theban Supremacies,
      chapter 12.

      ALSO IN:
      books 5-6.

      E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 6, chapter 2.

      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 80 (volume 10).

GREECE: B. C. 359-358.
   First proceedings of Philip of Macedonia.
   His acquisition of Amphipolis.

   The famous Philip of Macedon succeeded to the Macedonian
   throne in 359 B. C., at the age of 23. In his youth he had
   been delivered to the Thebans as one of the hostages given
   upon the conclusion of a treaty of peace in 368. "His
   residence at Thebes gave him some tincture of Grecian
   philosophy and literature; but the most important lesson which
   he learned at that city was the art of war, with all the
   improved tactics introduced by Epaminondas. Philip …
   displayed at the beginning of his reign his extraordinary
   energy and abilities. After defeating the Illyrians he
   established a standing army, in which discipline was preserved
   by the severest punishments. He introduced the far-famed
   Macedonian phalanx, which was 16 men deep, armed with long
   projecting spears. Philip's views were first turned towards
   the eastern frontiers of his dominions, where his interests
   clashed with those of the Athenians. A few years before the
   Athenians had made various unavailing attempts to obtain
   possession of Amphipolis, once the jewel of their empire, but
   which they had never recovered since its capture by Brasidas
   in the eighth year of the Peloponnesian war."

      W. Smith,
      Smaller History of Greece,
      chapter 19.

   The importance of Amphipolis to the Athenians arose chiefly
   from its vicinity to "the vast forests which clothed the
   mountains that enclose the basin of the Strymon, and afforded
   an inexhaustible supply of ship-timber." For the same reason
   that the Athenians desired ardently to regain possession of
   Amphipolis their enemies were strong in the wish to keep it
   out of their hands. Moreover, as the Macedonian kingdom became
   well-knitted in the strong hands of the ambitious Philip, the
   city of "the Nine Ways" assumed importance to that rising
   power, and Philip resolved to possess it. It was at this point
   that his ambitions first came into conflict with Athens. But
   the Athenians were not aware of his aims until too late. He
   deceived them completely, in fact, by a bargain to give help
   in acquiring Amphipolis for them, and to receive help in
   gaining Pydna for himself. But when his preparations were
   complete, he suddenly laid siege to Amphipolis and made
   himself master of the city (B. C. 358), besides taking Pydna
   as well. At Athens, "Philip was henceforth viewed as an open
   enemy, and this was the beginning—though without any formal
   declaration—of a state of hostility between the two powers,
   which was called, from its origin, the Amphipolitan War."

      C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 42 (volume 5).

GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
   Advancement of Philip of Macedonia to supremacy.
   The Sacred Wars and their consequences.
   The fatal field of Chæronea.
   Philip's preparations for the invasion of Asia.
   His assassination.

   A war between the Thebans and their neighbors, the Phocians,
   which broke out in 357 or 356 B. C., assumed great importance
   in Greek history and was called the Sacred War,—as two
   earlier contests, in which Delphi was concerned, had been
   likewise named. It is sometimes called the Ten Years Sacred
   War. Thebes, controlling the shadowy Amphictyonic Council, had
   brought a charge of sacrilege against the Phocians and
   procured a decree imposing upon them a heavy fine. The
   Phocians resisted the decree with unexpected energy, and, by a
   bold and sudden movement, gained possession of Delphi, where
   they destroyed the records of the Amphictyonic judgment
   against them. Having the vast accumulation of the sacred
   treasures of the Delphic temple in their hands, they did not
   scruple to appropriate them, and were able to maintain a
   powerful army of mercenaries, gathered from every part of
   Greece, with which they ravaged the territories of Bœotia and
   Locris, and acquired control of the pass of Thermopylæ.
   In the midst of their successes they were called upon for help
   by the tyrant of Pheræ in Thessaly, then being attacked by
   Philip of Macedon (B. C. 353). The Phocians opposed Philip
   with such success, at first, that he retreated from Thessaly;
   but it was only to recruit and reanimate his army. Returning
   presently he overthrew the Phocian army, with great
   slaughter—Onomarchus, its leader, being slain—and made
   himself master of all Thessaly. Both Athens and Sparta were
   now alarmed by this rapid advance into Central Greece of the
   conquering arms of the ambitious Macedonian, and both sent
   forces to the help of the Phocians. The former was so
   energetic that an army of 5,000 Athenian foot-soldiers and 400
   horse reached Thermopylæ (May 352 B. C.) before Philip had
   been able to push forward from Thessaly. When he did advance,
   proclaiming his purpose to rescue the Delphian temple from
   sacrilegious robbers, he was repulsed at the pass and drew
   back. It was the beginning of the struggle for Greek
   independence against Macedonian energy and ambition. A few
   months later Demosthenes delivered the first of his immortal
   orations, called afterwards Philippics, in which he strove to
   keep the already languishing energy of the Athenians alive, in
   unfaltering resistance to the designs of Philip. For six years
   there was a state of war between Philip and the Athenians with
   their allies, but the conquests of the former in Thrace and
   the Chalcidian peninsula were steadily pressed. At length (B.
   C. 346) Athens was treacherously persuaded into a treaty of
   peace with Philip (the Peace of Philocrates) which excluded
   the Phocians from its terms. No sooner had he thus isolated
   the latter than he marched quickly to Thermopylæ, secured
   possession of the pass and declared himself the supporter of
   Thebes. The Sacred War was ended, Delphi rescued, Phocis
   punished without mercy, and Greece was under the feet of a
   master. This being accomplished, the Peace of Philocrates was
   doubtfully maintained for about six years. Then quarrels broke
   out which led up to still another Sacred War, and which gave
   Philip another opportunity to trample on the liberties of
   Greece. Curiously, the provoking causes of this outbreak were
   an inheritance from that more ancient Sacred War which brought
   ruin upon the town of Cirrha and a lasting curse upon its
   soil. The Locrians of Amphissa, dwelling near to the accursed
   territory, had ventured in the course of years to encroach
   upon it with brick-kilns, and to make use of its harbor. At a
   meeting of the Amphictyonic Council, in the spring of B. C.
   339, this violation of the Sacred Law was brought to notice,
   by way of retaliation for some offence which the deputies of
   Amphissa had given to those of Athens. Hostilities ensued
   between the citizens of Delphi, pushed on by the Amphictyons,
   on one side, and the Amphissians on the other. The influence
   of Philip in the Amphictyonic Council was controlling, and his
   partisans had no difficulty in summoning him to act for the
   federation in settling this portentous affair. He marched into
   Bœotia, took possession of the strong city of Elatea, and very
   soon made it manifest that he contemplated something more than
   mere dealing with the refractory trespassers of Amphissa.
   Athens watched his movements with terror, and even Thebes, his
   former ally, took alarm. Through the exertions of Demosthenes,
   Thebes and Athens, once more, but too late, gave up their
   ancient enmity and united their strength and resources in a
   firm league. Megara, Corinth and other states were joined to
   them and common cause was made with the Locrians of Amphissa.
   These movements consumed a winter, and war opened in the
   spring. Philip gained successes from the beginning. He took
   Amphissa by surprise and carried Naupactus by storm. But it
   was not until August—the first day of August, B. C. 338—that
   the two combatants came together in force. This occurred in
   the Bœotian valley of the Cephisus, near the town of Chæronea,
   which gave its name to the battle. The Sacred Band of Thebes
   and the hoplites of Athens, with their allies, fought
   obstinately and well; but they were no match for the veterans
   of the Macedonian phalanx and most of them perished on the
   field. It was the last struggle for Grecian independence.
   Henceforth, practically at least, Hellas was swallowed up in
   Macedonia. We can see very plainly that Philip's "conduct
   towards Athens after the victory, under the appearance of
   generosity, was extremely prudent. His object was, to separate
   the Thebans from the Athenians, and he at once advanced
   against the former. The Athenian prisoners he sent home, free
   and clothed, accompanied by Antipater; he ordered the dead
   bodies to be burned, and their ashes to be conveyed to Athens,
   while the Thebans had to purchase their dead from him. He then
   entered Thebes, which he seems to have taken without any
   resistance, placed a Macedonian garrison in the Cadmea, and,
   with the same policy which Sparta had followed at Athens after
   the Peloponnesian war, he established an oligarchy of 300 of
   his partizans, who were for the most part returned exiles, and
   who now, under the protection of the garrison in the Cadmea,
   ruled like tyrants, and raged in a fearful manner. … Philip
   accepted all the terms which were agreeable to the Athenians;
   no investigations were to be instituted against his enemies,
   and none of them was to be sent into exile. Athens was not
   only to remain a perfectly sovereign city, but retain Lemnos,
   Imbros, and Scyros, nay even Samos and Chersonnesus, though he
   might have taken the latter without any difficulty, and though
   the Athenians had most cleruchiae in Samos. Thus he bought
   over the Athenians through this peace, against which
   Demosthenes and others, who saw farther, could not venture to
   protest, because Philip offered more than they could give him
   in return. … The only thing which the Athenians conceded to
   Philip, was, that they concluded a symmachia with him, and
   conferred upon him the supreme command in the Persian war. For
   with great cunning Philip summoned an assembly of the Greeks
   whom he called his allies, to Corinth, to deliberate upon the
   war against Persia. The war of revenge against the Persians
   had already become a popular idea in Greece. … Philip now
   entered Peloponnesus with his whole army, and went to the diet
   at Corinth, where the Greek deputies received his orders. In
   Peloponnesus he acted as mediator, for he was invited as such
   by the Arcadians, Messenians, and Argives, to decide their
   disputes with Lacedaemon, and they demanded that he should
   restore to them their ancient territories.
   The Arcadians had formerly possessed many places on the
   Eurotas, and the Messenians were still very far from having
   recovered all their ancient territories. He accordingly fixed
   the boundaries, and greatly diminished the extent of Laconia.
   … The Spartans, on that occasion, behaved in a dignified
   manner; they were the only ones who refused to acknowledge
   Philip as generalissimo against Persia. … Even the ancients
   regarded the day of Chaeronea as the death-day of Greece;
   every principle of life was cut off; the Greeks, indeed,
   continued to exist, but in spirit, and politically, they were
   dead. … Philip was now at the height of his power.
   Byzantium, and the other allied cities, had submitted to the
   conqueror, when he sent his army against them, and he was
   already trying to establish himself in Asia. 'A detachment of
   troops, under Attalus, had been sent across, to keep open the
   road for the great expedition, and had encamped on mount Ida.'
   Philip was thus enabled to commence his passage across the
   Hellespont whenever he pleased. But the close of his career
   was already at hand." He was assassinated in August, B. C.
   336, by a certain Pausanias, at the instigation, it is said,
   of Olympias, one of Philip's several wives—and the mother of
   his famous son Alexander—whom he had repudiated to please a
   younger bride. "Philip was unquestionably an uncommon and
   extraordinary man, and the opinion of several among the
   ancients, that by the foundation of the Macedonian state he
   did something far greater than Alexander by the application of
   the powers he inherited, is quite correct. … When we regard
   him as the creator of his state, by uniting the most different
   nations, Macedonians and Greeks; … when we reflect what a
   man he must have been, from whom proceeded the impulse to
   train such great generals, … to whom Alexander, it must be
   observed, did not add one, for all Alexander's generals
   proceeded from the school of Philip, and there is not one whom
   Alexander did not inherit from Philip;—when we perceive the
   skill with which he gained over nations and states, … we
   cannot but acknowledge that he was an extraordinary man."

      B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on Ancient History,
      lectures 69 and 66 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapters 43-46 (volumes 5-6).

      T. Leland,
      History of the Life and Reign of Philip of Macedon,
      books 2-5.

GREECE: B. C. 351-348.
   The Olynthian War.
   Destruction of Olynthus by Philip of Macedonia.

   After the overthrow of Spartan domination in Greece, Olynthus
   recovered its independence and regained, during the second
   quarter of the fourth century B. C., a considerable degree of
   prosperity and power. It was even helped in its rise by the
   cunning, dangerous hand of Philip of Macedon, who secured many
   and great advantages in his treacherous diplomacy by playing
   the mutual jealousies of Athens and Olynthus against one
   another. The Olynthian Confederacy, formed anew, just served
   its purpose as a counterpoise to the Athenian Confederacy,
   until Philip had no more need of that service. He was the
   friend and ally of the former until he had secured Amphipolis,
   Methone, and other necessary positions in Macedonia and
   Thrace. Then the mask began to slip and Olynthus (B. C. 351)
   got glimpses of the true character of her subtle neighbor. Too
   late, she made overtures to Athens, and Athens, too late, saw
   the vital importance of a league of friendship between the two
   Greek confederacies, against the half Hellenic, half barbaric
   Macedonian kingdom. Three of the great speeches of
   Demosthenes—the "Olynthiac orations"—were made upon this
   theme, and the orator succeeded for the first time in
   persuading his degenerated countrymen to act upon his clear
   view of the situation. Athens and Olynthus were joined in a
   defensive league and Athenian ships and men were sent to the
   Chalcidian peninsula,—too late. Partly by the force of his
   arms and partly by the power of his gold, buying traitors,
   Philip took Olynthus (B. C. 348) and all the thirty-two lesser
   towns that were federated with her. He took them and he
   destroyed them most brutally. "The haughty city of Olynthus
   vanished from the face of the earth, and together with it
   thirty-two towns inhabited by Greeks and flourishing as
   commercial communities. … The lot of those who saved life
   and liberty was happy in comparison with the fate of those
   who, like the majority of the Olynthians, fell into the hands
   of the conqueror and were sold into slavery, while their
   possessions were burnt to ashes or flung as booty to the
   mercenaries. … The mines continued to be worked for the
   royal treasury; with this exception the whole of Chalcidice
   became a desert"

      E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 7, chapter 3 (volume 5).

      ALSO IN:
      A. M. Curteis,
      Rise of the Macedonian Empire,
      chapters 4-5.

      B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on Ancient History,
      lectures 66-68 (volume 2).

GREECE: B. C. 340.
   Siege of Byzantium by Philip of Macedonia.

   The enmity between Athens and Byzantium yielded in 340 B. C.
   to their common fear of Philip of Macedon, and the exertions
   of Demosthenes brought about an alliance of the two cities, in
   which Perinthus, the near neighbor of Byzantium, was also
   joined. Philip, in wrath, proceeded with a fleet and army
   against both cities, laying siege, first to Perinthus and
   afterwards to Byzantium, but without success in either case.
   He was compelled to withdraw, after wasting several months in
   the fruitless undertaking. It was one of the few failures of
   the able Macedonian.

      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 90 (volume 11).

GREECE: B. C. 336-335.
   Northern campaign of Alexander of Macedonia.
   Revolt at Thebes.
   Destruction of the city.

   "Alexander … took up and continued the political and
   military schemes which his father had begun. We first make
   acquaintance with him and his army during his campaign against
   the tribes on the northern frontier of Makedonia. This
   campaign he carried out with energy equal to that of Philip,
   and with more success (spring of 335 B. C.). The distinctive
   feature of the war was that the Makedonian phalanx, the
   organization and equipment of which were adapted from Grecian
   models, everywhere won and maintained the upper hand. … Even
   at this epoch Byzantium was rising into importance. That city
   had, owing to its hostility with Persia, deserted the side of
   the Greeks for that of the Makedonians. It was from Byzantium
   that Alexander summoned triremes to help him against the
   island in the Danube on which the king of the Triballi had
   taken refuge. … The great successes of Alexander induced all
   the neighboring nationalities to accept the proposals of
   friendship which he made to them. … In Greece false reports
   concerning the progress of events in the north had raised to
   fever heat the general ferment which naturally existed.
   Alexander relied upon the resolutions of the League of the
   Public Peace [formed by the Congress at Corinth], which had
   recognized his father and afterwards himself as its head. But
   he was now opposed by all those who were unable to forget
   their former condition, and who preferred the alliance with
   Persia which had left them independent, to the league with
   Makedonia which robbed them of their autonomy. … Thebes took
   the lead of the malcontents, and set about ridding herself of
   the garrison which Philip had placed in the Cadmeia. She thus
   became the centre of the whole Hellenic opposition. The
   enemies of Makedon, who had been exiled from every city,
   assembled in Thebes. … The same party was stirring in
   Lakedæmon, in Arcadia, in Ætolia, and, above all, at Athens.
   From Athens the Thebans were supplied, through the mediation
   of Demosthenes, and doubtless by means of Persian gold, with
   arms, of which they were likely to stand in need. …
   Alexander had no sooner settled with his enemies in the north
   than he turned to Hellas. So rapid was his movement that he
   found the pass of Thermopylæ still open, and, long before he
   was expected, appeared before the walls of Thebes." The fate
   of the city was decided by a battle in which the Makedonians
   were overwhelmingly victorious. "In the market-place, in the
   streets, in the very houses, there ensued a hideous massacre.
   … The victors were, however, not satisfied with the
   slaughter. Alexander summoned a meeting of his League, by
   which the complete destruction of Thebes was decreed, and this
   destruction was actually carried out (October, 335 B. C.). [At
   the same time Platæa, which Thebes had destroyed, was ordered
   to be rebuilt.] In Grecian history it was no unheard-of event
   that the members of the defeated nation should be sold into
   slavery, and so it happened on this occasion. The sale of the
   slaves supplied Alexander with a sum of money which was no
   inconsiderable addition to his military chest. But his main
   object was to strike terror, and this was spread through
   Greece by the ruthless destruction of the city of Œdipus, of
   Pindar, and of Epameinondas. … Deep and universal horror
   fell upon the Greeks. … The close connection that existed at
   this moment between Grecian and Persian affairs forbade him to
   lose a moment in turning his arms towards Asia. … A war
   between Alexander and Persia was inevitable, not only on
   account of the relation of the Greeks to Makedon, whose yoke
   they were very loth to bear, but on account of their relation
   to Persia, on whose support they leaned. … The career which
   Philip had begun, and in which Alexander was now proceeding,
   led of necessity to a struggle with the power that held sway
   in Asia Minor. Until that power were defeated, the Makedonian
   kingdom could not be regarded as firmly established."

      L. von Ranke,
      Universal History:
      The Oldest Historical Group of Nations and the Greeks,
      chapter 10, part 2.

      ALSO IN:
      Anabasis of Alexander,
      book 1, chapters 1-10.

      T. A. Dodge,
      chapters 14-17.

GREECE: B. C. 334-323.
   Asiatic conquests of Alexander the Great.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330; and 330-323.

GREECE: B. C. 323-322.
   Attempt to break the Macedonian yoke.
   The Lamian War.
   Subjugation of Athens.
   Suppression of democracy.
   Expulsion of poor citizens.
   Death of Demosthenes.

   On the death of Alexander the Great, B. C. 323, a party at
   Athens which still hoped for freedom in Greece set on foot a
   vigorous movement designed to break the Macedonian yoke. A
   league was formed in which many cities joined—a larger
   assemblage of Hellenic states, says Mr. Grote, than that which
   resisted Xerxes in 480 B. C. A powerful army of Greek citizens
   and mercenaries was formed and placed under the command of a
   capable Athenian, Leosthenes, who led it into Thessaly, to
   meet the Macedonian general Antipater, who now ruled Greece.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

   The latter was defeated in a battle which ensued, and was
   driven into the fortified Thessalian town of Lamia, where he
   was besieged. Unfortunately, Leosthenes was killed during the
   progress of the siege, and a long interval occurred before a
   new commander could be agreed on. This gave Antipater time to
   obtain succor from Asia. A Macedonian army, under Leonnatus,
   crossed the Hellespont, and the besiegers of Lamia were forced
   to break up their camp in order to meet it. They did so with
   success; Leonnatus was slain and his army driven back. But
   meantime Antipater escaped from Lamia, joined the defeated
   troops and retreated into Macedonia. The war thus begun, and
   which took the name of the Lamian War, was continued, not
   unfavorably to the confederates, on the whole, until the
   following summer—August, 322 B. C.—when it was ended by a
   battle fought on the plain of Krannon, in Thessaly. Antipater,
   who had been joined by Kraterus, from Asia, was the victor,
   and Athens with all her allies submitted to the terms which he
   dictated. He established a Macedonian garrison in Munychia,
   and not only suppressed the democratic constitution of Athens,
   but ordered all the poorer citizens—all who possessed less
   than 2,000 drachmæ's worth of property, being 12,000 out of
   the 21,000 who then possessed the Athenian franchise—to be
   driven from the city; thus leaving a selected citizenship of
   9,000 of the richer and more manageable men. The banished or
   deported 12,000 were scattered in Thrace, Illyria, Italy and
   even in northern Africa. The leaders of the anti-Macedonian
   rising were pursued with unrelenting animosity. Demosthenes,
   the great orator, who had been conspicuous among them, was
   dragged from a temple at Kalauria, to which he had fled, and
   took poison to escape the worse death which probably awaited

      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 95 (volume 12).

GREECE: B. C. 323-301.
   Wars of the Diadochi or Successors of Alexander.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316; 315-310; and 310-301.

GREECE: B. C. 321-312.
   The contest for Athens and Peloponnesus, between Cassander and
   Execution of Phocion.
   Restoration of Thebes.

   "Antipater, after the termination of the Lamian war, passed
   over to Asia and took part in the affairs there.

      See MACEDONIA: A. D. 323-316.

   Being appointed guardian to the Kings, as the children and
   relatives of Alexander were called, he returned to Macedonia,
   leading them with him. … Antipater died (Olympiad 115, 3)
   shortly after his return to Macedonia. He directed that
   Polysperchon, his ancient mate in arms, should succeed him in
   his office, while to his son Cassander he left only the second
   place. But Cassander, an ambitious youth, looked upon his
   father's authority as his inheritance; and relying on the aid
   of the aristocratic party in the Grecian states, of Ptolemæus,
   who ruled in Egypt, and of Antigonus, the most powerful
   general in Asia, he resolved to dispute it with Polysperchon.
   Under pretext of going a-hunting, he escaped out of Macedonia,
   and passed over to Asia to concert matters with Antigonus.
   Polysperchon, seeing war inevitable, resolved to detach
   Greece, if possible, from Cassander. Knowing that the
   oligarchies established in the different states by Antipater
   would be likely to espouse the cause of his son, he issued a
   pompous edict, in the name of the Kings, restoring the
   democracies. … At Athens (Olympiad 115,4) [B. C. 317],
   Nicanor, who commanded in the Munychia, finding that the
   people were inclined toward Polysperchon, secretly collected
   troops, and seized the Piræeus. The people sent to him
   Phocion, Conon the son of Timotheüs, and Clearchus, men of
   distinction, and his friends; but to no purpose. A letter also
   came to him from Olympias, Alexander's mother, whom
   Polysperchon had recalled from Epeirus, and given the charge
   of her infant grandson, ordering him to surrender both the
   Munychia and the Piræeus; but to as little effect. Finally,
   Polysperchon's son Alexander entered Attica with an army, and
   encamped before the Piræeus. Phocion and other chiefs of the
   aristocracy went to Alexander, and advised him not to give
   these places up to the people, but to hold them himself till
   the contest with Cassander should be terminated. They feared,
   it is evident, for their own safety, and not without reason;
   for the people, ferocious with the recovery of power, soon
   after held an assembly, in which they deposed all the former
   magistrates, appointed the most furious democrats in their
   room, and passed sentences of death, banishment, and
   confiscation of goods on those who had governed under the
   oligarchy. Phocion and his friends fled to Alexander, who
   received them kindly, and sent them with letters in their
   favor to his father, who was now in Phocis. The Athenians also
   despatched an embassy, and, yielding to motives of interest,
   Polysperchon sent his suppliants prisoners to Athens, to stand
   a trial for their lives before the tribunal of an anarchic
   mob. … The prisoners were condemned and led off to prison,
   followed by the tears of their friends and the triumphant
   execrations of their mean-spirited enemies. They drank the
   fatal hemlock-juice, and their bodies were cast unburied
   beyond the confines of Attica. Four days after the death of
   Phocion, Cassander arrived at the Piræeus with 35 ships,
   carrying 4,000 men, given him by Antigonus. Polysperchon
   immediately entered Attica with 20,000 Macedonian foot and
   4,000 of those of the allies, 1,000 horse, and 65 elephants,
   which he had brought from Asia, and encamped near the Piræeus.
   But as the siege was likely to be tedious, and sufficient
   provisions for so large an army could not be had, he left a
   force such as the country could support with his son
   Alexander, and passed with the remainder into Peloponnesus, to
   force the Megalopolitans to submit to the Kings; for they
   alone sided with Cassander, all the rest having obeyed the
   directions to put to death or banish his adherents. The whole
   serviceable population of Megalopolis, slaves included,
   amounted to 15,000 men; and under the directions of one Damis,
   who had served in Asia under Alexander, they prepared for a
   vigorous defence. Polysperchon sat down before the town, and
   his miners in a short time succeeded in throwing down three
   towers and a part of the wall. He attempted a storm, but was
   obliged to draw off his men, after an obstinate conflict. …
   The Athenians meantime saw themselves excluded from the sea,
   and from all their sources of profit and enjoyment, while
   little aid was to be expected from Polysperchon, who had been
   forced to raise the siege of Megalopolis, and whose fleet had
   just now been destroyed by Antigonus in the Hellespont. A
   citizen of some consideration ventured at length to propose in
   the assembly an arrangement with Cassander. The ordinary
   tumult at first was raised, but the sense of interest finally
   prevailed. Peace was procured, on the conditions of the
   Munychia remaining in Cassander's hands till the end of the
   present contest; political privileges being restricted to
   those possessed of ten minas and upwards of property, and a
   person appointed by Cassander being at the head of the
   government. The person selected for this office was Demetrius
   of Phaleron, a distinguished Athenian citizen; and under his
   mild and equitable rule the people were far happier than they
   could have been under a democracy, for which they had proved
   themselves no longer fit. Cassander then passed over into
   Peloponnesus, and laid siege to Tegea. While here, he heard
   that Olympias had put to death several of his friends in
   Macedonia; among the rest, Philip Aridæus and his wife
   Eurydice, members of the royal family. He at once (Olympiad
   116, 1) [B. C. 316] set out for Macedonia; and, as the pass of
   Pylæ was occupied by the Ætolians, he embarked his troops in
   Locris, and landed them in Thessaly. He besieged Olympias in
   Pydna, forced her to surrender, and put her to death.
   Macedonia submitted to him, and he then set forth for
   Peloponnesus, where Polysperchon's son Alexander was at the
   head of an army. He forced a passage through Pylæ, and coming
   into Bœotia, announced his intention of restoring Thebes,
   which had now lain desolate for twenty years. The scattered
   Thebans were collected; the towns of Bœotia and other parts of
   Greece (Athens in particular), and even of Italy and Sicily,
   aided to raise the walls and to supply the wants of the
   returning exiles, and Thebes was once more numbered among the
   cities of Greece. As Alexander guarded the Isthmus, Cassander
   passed to Megara, where he embarked his troops and elephants,
   and crossed over to Epidaurus. He made Argos and Messene come
   over to his side, and then returned to Macedonia. In the
   conflict of interests which prevailed in this anarchic period,
   Antigonus was ere long among the enemies of Cassander. He sent
   one of his generals to Laconia, who, having obtained
   permission from the Spartans to recruit in Peloponnesus,
   raised 8,000 men. The command in Peloponnesus was given to
   Polysperchon, whose son Alexander was summoned over to Asia to
   accuse Cassander of treason before the assembly of the
   Macedonian soldiers. Cassander was proclaimed a public enemy
   unless he submitted to Antigonus; at the same time the Greeks
   were declared independent, Antigonus hoping thus to gain them
   over to his side. He then sent Alexander back with 500
   talents; and when Ptolemæus of Egypt heard what Antigonus had
   done, he also hastened to declare the independence of the
   Greeks; for all the contending generals were anxious to stand
   well with the people of Greece, from which country, exclusive
   of other advantages, they drew their best soldiers.
   … Antigonus, to show the Greeks that he was in earnest in
   his promise to restore them to independence, sent one of his
   generals, named Telesphorus, with a fleet and army to
   Peloponnesus, who expelled Cassander's garrisons from most of
   the towns. The following year (Olympiad 117, 1) [B. C. 312] he
   sent an officer, named Ptolemæus, with another fleet and army
   to Greece. Ptolemæus landed in Bœotia, and being joined by
   2,200 foot, and 1,300 horse of the Bœotians, he passed over to
   Eubœa; where having expelled the Macedonian garrison from
   Chalcis (the only town there which Cassander held), he left it
   without any foreign garrison, as a proof that Antigonus meant
   fairly. He then took Orôpus, and gave it to the Bœotians; he
   entered Attica, and the people forced Demetrius Phalereus to
   make a truce with him, and to send to Antigonus to treat of an
   alliance. Ptolemæus returned to Bœotia, expelled the garrison
   from the Cadmeia, and liberated Thebes."

      T. Keightley,
      History of Greece,
      part 3, chapter 5.

      ALSO IN:
      C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 58 (volume 7).

GREECE: B. C. 307-197.
   Demetrius and the Antigonids.

   In the spring of the year 307 B. C. Athens was surprised by an
   expedition sent from Ephesus by Antigonus, under his
   adventurous son Demetrius, surnamed Poliorcetes.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.

   The city had then been for ten years subject to Cassander, the
   ruling chief in Macedonia for the time, and appears to have
   been mildly governed by Cassander's lieutenant, Demetrius the
   Phalerian. The coming of the other Demetrius offered nothing
   to the Athenians but a change of masters, but they welcomed
   him with extravagant demonstrations. Their degeneracy was
   shown in proceedings of Asiatic servility. They deified
   Demetrius and his father Antigonus, erected altars to them and
   appointed ministering priests. After some months spent at
   Athens in the enjoyment of these adulations, Demetrius
   returned to Asia, to take part in the war which Antigonus was
   waging with Ptolemy of Egypt and Lysimachus of Thrace, two of
   his former partners in the partition of the empire of
   Alexander. He was absent three years, and then returned, at
   the call of the Athenians, to save them from falling again
   into the hands of Cassander. He now made Athens his capital,
   as it were, for something more than a year, while he acquired
   control of Corinth, Argos, Sicyon, Chalcis in Eubœa and other
   important places, greatly reducing the dominion of the
   Macedonian, Cassander. His treatment at Athens, during this
   period, was marked by the same impious and disgraceful
   servility as before. He was called the guest of the goddess
   Athene and lodged in the Parthenon, which he polluted with
   intolerable debaucheries. But in the summer of 301 B. C. this
   clever adventurer was summoned again to Asia, to aid his
   father in the last great struggle, which decided the partition
   of the empire of Alexander between his self-constituted heirs.
   At the battle of Ipsus (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301),
   Antigonus perished and Demetrius was stripped of the kingdom
   he expected to inherit. He turned to Athens for consolation,
   and the fickle city refused to admit him within her walls. But
   after some period of wanderings and adventures the
   unconquerable prince got together a force with which he
   compelled the Athenians to receive him, on more definite terms
   of submission on their part and of mastery on his. Moreover,
   he established his rule in the greater part of Peloponnesus,
   and finally, on the death of Cassander (B. C. 297), he
   acquired the crown of Macedonia. Not satisfied with what
   fortune had thus given him, he attempted to recover the
   Asiatic kingdom of his father, and died, B. C. 283, a captive
   in the hands of the Syrian monarch, Seleucus. His Macedonian
   kingdom had meantime been seized by Pyrrhus of Epirus; but it
   was ultimately recovered by the eldest legitimate son of
   Demetrius, called Antigonus Gonatus. From that time, for a
   century, until the Romans came, not only Macedonia, but Greece
   at large, Athens included, was ruled or dominated by this king
   and his descendants, known as the Antigonid kings.

      C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapters 59-60 (volumes 7-8).

GREECE: B. C. 297-280.
   Death of Cassander.
   Intrigues and murders of Ptolemy Keraunos and his strange
   acquisition of the Macedonian throne.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280.

GREECE: B. C. 280-279.
   Invasion by the Gauls.

      See GAULS: B. C. 280-279.

GREECE: B. C. 280-275.
   Campaigns of Pyrrhus in Italy and Sicily.

      See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

GREECE: B. C. 3d Century.
   The Hellenistic world.

   As the result of the conquests of Alexander and the wars of
   his successors, there were, in the third century before
   Christ, three great Hellenistic kingdoms, Macedonia, Egypt,
   Syria, which lasted, each under its own dynasty, till Rome
   swallowed them up. The first of these, which was the poorest,
   and the smallest, but historically the most important,
   included the ancestral possessions of Philip and Alexander—
   Macedonia, most of Thrace, 'Thessaly, the mountainous centre
   of the peninsula, as well as a protectorate more or less
   definite and absolute over Greece proper, the Cyclades, and
   certain tracts of Caria. … Next came Egypt, including Cyrene
   and Cyprus, and a general protectorate over the sea-coast
   cities of Asia Minor up to the Black Sea, together with claims
   often asserted with success on Syria, and on the coast lands
   of Southern Asia Minor. … Thirdly came what was now called
   Syria, on account of the policy of the house of Seleucus, who
   built there its capital, and determined to make the Greek or
   Hellenistic end of its vast dominions its political centre of
   gravity. The Kingdom of Syria owned the south and south-east
   of Asia Minor, Syria, and generally Palestine, Mesopotamia,
   and the mountain provinces adjoining it on the East, with
   vague claims further east when there was no king like
   Sandracottus to hold India and the Punjaub with a strong hand.
   There was still a large element of Hellenism in these remote
   parts. The kingdom of Bactria was ruled by a dynasty of kings
   with Greek names—Euthydemus is the chief—who coined in Greek
   style, and must therefore have regarded themselves as
   successors to Alexander. There are many exceptions and
   limitations to this general description, and many secondary
   and semi-independent kingdoms, which make the picture of
   Hellenism infinitely various and complicated. There was, in
   fact, a chain of independent kingdoms reaching from Media to
   Sparta, all of which asserted their complete freedom, and
   generally attained it by balancing the great powers one
   against the other.
   Here they are in their order. Atropatene was the kingdom in
   the northern and western parts of the province of Media, by
   Atropates, the satrap of Alexander, who claimed descent from
   the seven Persian chiefs who put Darius I. on the throne. Next
   came Armenia, hardly conquered by Alexander, and now
   established under a dynasty of its own. Then Cappadocia, the
   land in the heart of Asia Minor, where it narrows between
   Cilicia and Pontus, ruled by sovereigns also claiming royal
   Persian descent. … Fourthly, Pontus, under its equally
   Persian dynast Mithridates—a kingdom which makes a great
   figure in Eastern history under the later Roman Republic.
   There was moreover a dynast of Bithynia, set up and supported
   by the robber state of the Celtic Galatians, which had just
   been founded, and was a source of strength and of danger to
   all its neighbours. Then Pergamum, just being founded and
   strengthened by the first Attalid, Philetærus, an officer of
   Lysimachus, and presently to become one of the leading
   exponents of Hellenism. … Almost all these second-rate
   states (and with them the free Greek cities of Heracleia,
   Cyzicus, Byzantium, &c.) were fragments of the shuttered
   kingdom of Lysimachus. … We have taken no account of a very
   peculiar feature extending all through even the Greek
   kingdoms, especially that of the Selucids—the number of large
   Hellenistic cities founded as special centres of culture, or
   points of defence, and organized as such with a certain local
   independence. These cities, most of which we only know by
   name, were the real backbone of Hellenism in the world.
   Alexander had founded seventy of them, all called by his name.
   Many were upon great trade lines, like the Alexandria which
   still exists. Many were intended as garrison towns in the
   centre of remote provinces, like Candahar—a corruption of
   Iskanderieh, Iskendar being the Oriental form for Alexander.
   Some were mere outposts, where Macedonian soldiers were forced
   to settle, and guard the frontiers against the barbarians,
   like the Alexandria on the Iaxartes. … As regards Seleucus
   … we have a remarkable statement from Appian that he founded
   cities through the length and breadth of his kingdom, viz.,
   sixteen Antiochs called after his father, five Laodiceas after
   his mother, nine Seleucias after himself, three Apameias and
   one Stratoniceia after his wives. … All through Syria and
   Upper Asia there are many towns bearing Greek and Macedonian
   names—Berea, Edessa, Perinthos, Aclæa, Pella, &c. The number
   of these, which have been enumerated in a special catalogue by
   Droysen, the learned historian of Hellenism, is enormous, and
   the first question which arises in our mind is this: where
   were Greek-speaking people found to fill them? It is indeed
   true that Greece proper about this time became depopulated,
   and that it never has recovered from this decay. … Yet …
   the whole population of Greece would never have sufficed for
   one tithe of the cities—the great cities—founded all over
   Asia by the Diadochi. We are therefore driven to the
   conclusion that but a small fraction, the soldiers and
   officials of the new cities, were Greeks—Macedonians, when
   founded by Alexander himself—generally broken down veterans,
   mutinous and discontented troops, and camp followers. To these
   were associated people from the surrounding country, it being
   Alexander's fixed idea to discountenance sporadic country life
   in villages and encourage town communities. The towns
   accordingly received considerable privileges. … The Greek
   language and political habits were thus the one bond of union
   among them, and the extraordinary colonizing genius of the
   Greek once more proved itself."

      J. P. Mahaffy,
      The Story of Alexander's Empire,
      chapter 10.

      See, also,

GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
   The Achaian League.
   Its rise and fall.
   Destruction of Sparta.
   Supremacy of Rome.

   The Achaian League, which bore a leading part in the affairs
   of Greece during the last half of the third and first half of
   the second century before Christ, was in some sense the
   revival of a more ancient confederacy among the cities of
   Achaia in Peloponnesus. The older League, however, was
   confined to twelve cities of Achaia and had little weight,
   apparently, in general Hellenic politics. The revived League
   grew beyond the territorial boundaries which were indicated by
   its name, and embraced the larger part of Peloponnesus. It
   began about 280 B. C. by the forming of a union between the
   two Achaian cities of Patrai and Dyme. One by one their
   neighbors joined them, until ten cities were confederated and
   acting as one. "The first years of the growth of the Achaian
   League are contemporary with the invasion of Macedonia and
   Greece by the Gauls and with the wars between Pyrrhos and
   Antigonos Gonatas.

      See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 277-244.

   Pyrrhos, for a moment, expelled Antigonos from the Macedonian
   throne, which Antigonos recovered while' Pyrrhos was warring
   in Peloponnesos. By the time that Pyrrhos was dead, and
   Antigonos again firmly fixed in Macedonia, the League had
   grown up to maturity as far as regarded the cities of the old
   Achaia. … Thus far, then, circumstances had favoured the
   quiet and peaceful growth of the League." It had had the
   opportunity to grow firm enough and strong enough, on the
   small scale, to offer some lessons to its disunited and
   tyrannized neighbors and to exercise an attractive influence
   upon them. One of the nearest of these neighbors was Sikyon,
   which groaned under a tyranny that had been fastened upon it
   by Macedonian influence. Among the exiles from Sikyon was a
   remarkable young man named Aratos, or Aratus, to whom the
   successful working of the small Achaian League suggested some
   broader extension of the same political organism. In B. C.
   251, Aratos succeeded in delivering his native city from its
   tyrant and in bringing about the annexation of Sikyon to the
   Achaian League. Eight years later, having meantime been
   elected to the chief office of the League, Aratos accomplished
   the expulsion of the Macedonians and their agents from
   Corinth, Megara, Troizen and Epidauros, and persuaded those
   four cities to unite themselves with the Achaians. During the
   next ten years he made similar progress in Arkadia, winning
   town after town to the federation, until the Arkadian federal
   capital, Megalopolis, was enrolled in the list of members, and
   gave to the League its greatest acquisition of energy and
   brain. In 229 B. C. the skill of Aratos and the prestige of
   the League, taking advantage of disturbances in Macedonia,
   effected the withdrawal of the Macedonian garrisons from
   Athens and the liberation of that city, which did not become
   confederated with its liberators, but entered into alliance
   with them. Argos was emancipated and annexed, B. C. 228, and
   "the League was now the greatest power of Greece.
   A Federation of equal cities, democratically governed,
   embraced the whole of old Achaia, the whole of the Argolic
   peninsula, the greater part of Arkadia, together with Phlious,
   Sikyon, Corinth, Megara, and the island of Aigina." The one
   rival of the Achaian League in Peloponnesus was Sparta, which
   looked with jealousy upon its growing power, and would not be
   confederated with it. The consequences of that jealous rivalry
   were fatal to the hopes for Greece which the Achaian union had
   seemed to revive. Unfortunately, rather than otherwise, the
   Lacedæmonian throne came to be occupied at this time by the
   last of the hero-kings of the Herakleid race—Kleomenes. When
   the inevitable collision of war between Sparta and the League
   occurred (B. C. 227-221), the personal figure of Kleomenes
   loomed so large in the conflict that it took the name of the
   Kleomenic War. Aratos was the worst of generals, Kleomenes one
   of the greatest, and the Achaians were steadily beaten in the
   field. Driven to sore straits at last, they abandoned the
   whole original purpose of their federation, by inviting the
   king of Macedonia to help them crush the independence of
   Sparta. To win his aid they gave up Corinth to him, and under
   his leadership they achieved the shameful victory of Sellasia
   (B. C. 221), where all that is worthy in Lacedæmonian history
   came to an end. The League was now scarcely more than a
   dependency of the Macedonian kingdom, and figured as such in
   the so-called Social War with the Ætolian League, B. C.
   219-217. The wars of Rome with Macedonia which followed
   renewed its political importance considerably for a time.
   Becoming the ally of Rome, it was able to maintain a certain
   dignity and influence until the supremacy of the Roman arms
   had been securely proved, and then it sank to the helpless
   insignificance which all Roman alliances led to in the end. It
   was in that state when, on some complaint from Rome (B. C.
   167), a thousand of the chief citizens of Achaia were sent as
   prisoners to Italy and detained there until less than 300
   survived to return to their homes. Among them was the
   historian Polybios. A little later (B. C. 146) there was a
   wild revolt from the Roman yoke, in which Corinth took the
   lead. A few months of war ensued, ending in a decisive battle
   at Leukopetra. Then Corinth was sacked and destroyed by the
   Roman army and the Achaian League disappeared from history.

      E. A. Freeman,
      History of Federal Government,
      chapters 5-9.

      ALSO IN:
      C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapters 61-66 (volume 8).


GREECE: B. C. 214-146.
   The Roman conquest.

   The series of wars in which the Romans made themselves masters
   of Greece were known in their annals as the Macedonian Wars.
   At the beginning, they were innocent of aggression. A young
   and ambitious but unprincipled king of Macedonia—Philip, who
   succeeded the able Antigonos Doson—had put himself in
   alliance with the Carthaginians and assailed the Romans in the
   midst of their desperate conflict with Hannibal. For the time
   they were unable to do more than trouble Philip so far as to
   prevent his bringing effective reinforcements to the enemy at
   their doors, and this they accomplished in part by a treaty
   with the Ætolians, which enlisted that unscrupulous league
   upon their side. The first Macedonian war, which began B. C.
   214, was terminated by the Peace of Dyrrachium, B. C. 205. The
   Peace was of five years duration, and Philip employed it in
   reckless undertakings against Pergamus, against Rhodes,
   against Athens, everyone of which carried complaints to Rome,
   the rising arbiter of the Mediterranean world, whose hostility
   Philip lost no opportunity to provoke. On the Ides of March,
   B. C. 200, the Roman senate declared war. In the spring of B.
   C. 197 this second Macedonian War was ended at the battle of
   Cynoscephalæ—so called from the name of a range of hills
   known as the Dog-heads—where the Macedonian army was
   annihilated by the consul T. Quinctius Flamininus. At the next
   assembly of the Greeks for the Isthmian Games, a crier made
   proclamation in the arena that the Roman Senate and T.
   Quinctius the General, having conquered King Philip and the
   Macedonians, declared all the Greeks who had been subject to
   the king free and independent. Henceforth, whatever freedom
   and independence the states of Greece enjoyed were according
   to the will of Rome. An interval of twenty-five years, broken
   by the invasion of Antiochus and his defeat by the Romans at
   Thermopylæ (see SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187), was followed by a
   third Macedonian War. Philip was now dead and succeeded by his
   son Perseus, known to be hostile to Rome and accused of
   intrigues with her enemies. The Roman Senate forestalled his
   intentions by declaring war. The war which opened B. C. 171
   was closed by the battle of Pydna, fought June 22, B. C. 168,
   where 20,000 Macedonians were slain and 11,000 taken
   prisoners, while the Romans lost scarcely 100 men. Perseus
   attempted flight, but was soon driven to give himself up and
   was sent to Rome. The Macedonian kingdom was then extinguished
   and its territory divided between four nominal republics,
   tributary to Rome. Twenty years after, there was an attempt
   made by a pretender to re-establish the Macedonian throne, and
   a fourth Macedonian War occurred; but it was soon finished (B.
   C. 146—see above, B. C. 280-146). The four republics then
   gave way, to form a Roman province of Macedonia and Epirus,
   while the remainder of Greece, in turn, became the Roman
   province of Achaia.

      C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapters 64-66 (volume 8).

      ALSO IN:
      H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      chapters 39, 43 and 45.

      E. A. Freeman,
      History of Federal Government,
      chapters 8-9.

      General History.

GREECE: B. C. 191.
   War of Antiochus of Syria and the Romans.

      See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

GREECE: B. C. 146-A. D. 180.
   Under the Romans, to the reign of Marcus Aurelius.
   Sufferings in the Mithridatic war and revolt,
   and in the Roman civil wars.
   Treatment by the emperors.
   Munificence of Herodes Atticus.

   "It was some time [after the Roman conquest] before the Greeks
   had great reason to regret their fortune. A combination of
   causes, which could hardly have entered into the calculations
   of any politician, enabled them to preserve their national
   institutions, and to exercise all their former social
   influence, even after the annihilation of their political
   existence. Their vanity was flattered by their admitted
   superiority in arts and literature, and by the respect paid to
   their usages and prejudices by the Romans. Their political
   subjection was at first not very burdensome; and a
   considerable portion of the nation was allowed to retain the
   appearance of independence.
   Athens and Sparta were honoured with the title of allies of
   Rome. [Athens retained this independent existence, partaking
   something of the position of Hamburg in the Germanic body,
   until the time of Caracalla, when its citizens were absorbed
   into the Roman empire.—Footnote.] The nationality of the
   Greeks was so interwoven with their municipal institutions,
   that the Romans found it impossible to abolish the local
   administration; and an imperfect attempt made at the time of
   the conquest of Achaia was soon abandoned. … The Roman
   senate was evidently not without great jealousy and some fear
   of the Greeks; and great prudence was displayed in adopting a
   number of measures by which they were gradually weakened, and
   cautiously broken to the yoke of their conquerors. … It was
   not until after the time of Augustus, when the conquest of
   every portion of the Greek nation had been completed, that the
   Romans began to view the Greeks in the contemptible light in
   which they are represented by the writers of the capital.
   Crete was not reduced into the form of a province until about
   eight years after the subjection of Achaia, and its conquest
   was not effected without difficulty, after a war of three
   years, by the presence of a consular army. The resistance it
   offered was so obstinate that it was almost depopulated ere
   the Romans could complete its conquest. … The Roman
   government … soon adopted measures tending to diminish the
   resources of the Greek states when received as allies of the
   republic. … If we could place implicit faith in the
   testimony of so firm and partial an adherent of the Romans as
   Polybius, we must believe that the Roman administration was at
   first characterised by a love of justice, and that the Roman
   magistrates were far less venal than the Greeks. … Less than
   a century of irresponsible power effected a wonderful change
   in the conduct of the Roman magistrates. Cicero declares that
   the senate made a traffic of justice to the provincials. …
   But as the government of Rome grew more oppressive, and the
   amount of the taxes levied on the provinces was more severely
   exacted, the increased power of the republic rendered any
   rebellion of the Greeks utterly hopeless. … For sixty years
   after the conquest of Achaia, the Greeks remained docile
   subjects of Rome. … The number of Roman usurers increased,
   and the exactions of Roman publicans in collecting the taxes
   became more oppressive, so that when the army of Mithridates
   invaded Greece, B. C. 86, while Rome appeared plunged in
   anarchy by the civil broils of the partisans of Marius and
   Sylla, the Greeks in office conceived the vain hope of
   recovering their independence. …

      and ATHENS: B. C. 87-86.

   Both parties, during the Mithridatic war, inflicted severe
   injuries on Greece. … Many of the losses were never
   repaired. The foundations of national prosperity were
   undermined, and it henceforward became impossible to save from
   the annual consumption of the inhabitants the sums necessary
   to replace the accumulated capital of ages, which this short
   war had annihilated."

      G. Finlay,
      Greece under the Romans,
      chapter 1.

   "Scarcely had the storm of Roman war passed by, when the
   Cilician pirates, finding the coasts of Greece peculiarly
   favorable for their marauding incursions, and tempted by the
   wealth accumulated in the cities and temples, commenced their
   depredations on so gigantic a scale that Rome felt obliged to
   put forth all her military forces for their suppression. The
   exploits of Pompey the Great, who was clothed with autocratic
   power to destroy this gigantic evil, fill the brightest
   chapter in the history of that celebrated but too unfortunate
   commander. …


   The civil wars in which the great Republic expired had the
   fields of Greece for their theatre. Under the tramp of
   contending armies, her fertile plains were desolated, and
   Roman blood, in a cause not her own; again and again moistened
   her soil.

      See ROME: B. C. 48, 44-42, and 31.

   But at length the civil wars have come to an end, and the
   Empire introduces, for the first time in the melancholy
   history of man, a state of universal peace. Greece still
   maintains her pre-eminence in literature and art, and her
   schools are frequented by the sons of the Roman aristocracy.
   Her elder poets serve as models to the literary genius of the
   Augustan age. … The historians form themselves on Attic
   prototypes, and the philosophers of Rome divide themselves
   among the Grecian sects, while in Athens the Platonists, the
   Stoics, the Peripatetics, and the Epicureans still haunt the
   scenes with which the names of their masters were inseparably
   associated. … The establishment of the Empire made but
   little change in the administration of Greece. Augustus,
   indeed, showed no great solicitude, except to maintain the
   country in subjection by his military colonies,—especially
   those of Patræ and Nicopolis. He even deprived Athens of the
   privileges she had enjoyed under the Republic, and broke down
   the remaining power of Sparta, by declaring the independence
   of her subject towns. Some of his successors treated the
   country with favor, and endeavored, by a clement use of
   authority, to mitigate the sufferings of its decline. Even
   Nero, the amiable fiddler of Rome, was proud to display the
   extent of his musical abilities in their theatres. … The
   noble Trajan allowed the Greeks to retain their former local
   privileges, and did much to improve their condition by his
   wise and just administration. Hadrian was a passionate lover
   of Greek art and literature. Athens especially received the
   amplest benefits from his taste and wealth. He finished the
   temple of Olympian Zeus; established a public library; built a
   pantheon and a gymnasium; rebuilt the temple of Apollo at
   Megara; improved the old roads of Greece and made new ones.
   … Antoninus and Marcus Aurelius showed good will to Greece.
   The latter rebuilt the temple at Eleusis, and improved the
   Athenian schools, raising the salaries of the teachers, and in
   various ways contributing to make Athens, as it had been
   before, the most illustrious seat of learning in the world. It
   was in the reign of this Emperor, in the second century of our
   era, that one of the greatest benefactors of Athens and all
   Greece lived,--Herodes Atticus, distinguished alike for
   wealth, learning, and eloquence. Born at Marathon, …
   educated at Athens by the best teachers his father's wealth
   could procure, he became on going to Rome, in early life, the
   rhetorical teacher of Marcus Aurelius himself. Antoninus Pius
   bestowed on him the honor of the consulship; but he preferred
   the career of a teacher at Athens to the highest political
   dignities … , and he was followed thither by young men of
   the most eminent Roman families, from the Emperor's down. …
   At Athens, south of the Ilissus, he built the stadium … and
   the theatre of Regilla. … At Corinth he built a theatre; at
   Olympia, an aqueduct; at Delphi, a race-course; and at
   Thermopylæ, a hospital. Peloponnesus, Eubœa, Bœotia, and
   Epeirus experienced his bounty, and even Italy was not
   forgotten in the lavish distribution of his wealth. He died in
   A. D. 180."

      C. C. Felton,
      Greece, Ancient and Modern, 4th course,
      lecture 3 (volume 2).

   On the influence which Greek genius and culture exercised upon
   the Romans,


      ALSO IN:
      T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome: The Provinces,
      chapter 7 (volume 1).

      J. P. Mahaffy,
      The Greek World under Roman Sway.

      See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 197-A. D. 138.

GREECE: B. C. 48.
   Cæsar's campaign against Pompeius.

      See ROME: B. C. 48.

GREECE: A. D. 258-395.
   Gothic invasions.

      See GOTHS.

GREECE: A. D. 330.
   Transference of the capital of the Roman Empire to Byzantium

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 330.

GREECE: A. D. 394-395.
   Final division of the Roman Empire between the sons of
   Definite organization of the Eastern Empire under Arcadius.

      See ROME: A. D. 394-395.

GREECE: A. D. 425.
   Legal separation of the Eastern and Western Empires.

      See Rome: A. D. 423-450.

GREECE: A. D. 446.
   Devastating invasion of the Huns.

      See HUNS: A. D. 441-446.

GREECE: A. D. 527-567.
   The reign of Justinian at Constantinople.
   His recovery of Italy and Africa.

      See ROME: A. D. 527-567, and 535-553.

GREECE: 7th Century.
   Slavonic occupation of the Peninsula.


GREECE: A. D. 717-1205.
   The Byzantine Empire to its fall.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 717, to 1204-1205.

GREECE: A. D. 1205-1261.
   Overthrow of the Byzantine Empire by the Crusaders.
   The Latin Empire of Romania.
   The Greek Empire of Nicæa.
   The dukedoms of Athens and Naxos;
   The principality of Achaia.

      ATHENS: A. D.1205;
      ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387;
      and NAXOS.

GREECE: A. D. 1261-1453.
   The restored Byzantine or Greek Empire.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE; A. D. 1261-1453;
      and BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1261-1453.

GREECE: A. D. 1453-1479.
   The Turkish Conquest.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481;
      CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1453, and 1453-1481;
      and ATHENS: A. D. 1456.

GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.
   War of Turks and Venetians in the Peninsula.
   Siege of Corinth.
   Sack of Athens.
   Massacres at Negropont and Croia.

   "The taking of Constantinople by the Turks, and the captivity
   of the Venetians settled in Pera, threatened [the power of
   Venice] … in the East; and she felt no repugnance to enter
   into a treaty with the enemies of her religion. After a year's
   negotiation, terms were concluded [1454] between the Sultan
   and Venice; by which her possessions were secured to her, and
   her trade guaranteed throughout the empire. In virtue of this
   treaty she continued to occupy Modon, Coron, Napoli di
   Romania, Argos, and other cities on the borders of the
   Peninsula, together with Eubœa (Negropont) and some of the
   smaller islands. But this good understanding was interrupted
   in 1463, when the Turks contrived an excuse for attacking the
   Venetian territory. Under pretence of resenting the asylum
   afforded to a Turkish refugee, the Pasha of the Morea besieged
   and captured Argos; and the Republic felt itself compelled
   immediately to resent the aggression. A re-inforcement was
   sent from Venice to Napoli, and Argos was quickly recaptured.
   Corinth was next besieged, and the project of fortifying the
   isthmus was once more renewed. … The labour of 30,000
   workmen accomplished the work in 15 days; a stone wall of more
   than 12 feet high, defended by a ditch and flanked by 136
   towers, was drawn across the isthmus. … But the approach
   of the Turks, whose numbers were probably exaggerated by
   report, threw the Venetians into distrust and consternation;
   and, unwilling to confide in the strength of their rampart,
   they abandoned the siege of Corinth, and retreated to Napoli,
   from which the infidels were repulsed with the loss of 5,000
   men. The Peloponnesus was now exposed to the predatory
   retaliations of the Turks and Venetians; and the Christians
   appeared anxious to rival or surpass the Mahomedans in the
   refinement of their barbarous inflictions. … In the year
   1465, Sigismondo Malatesta landed in the Morea with a
   re-inforcement of 1,000 men; and, without effecting the
   reduction of the citadel, captured and burned Misitra [near
   the ruins of ancient Sparta]. In the following year, Vittore
   Cappello, with the Venetian fleet, arrived in the straits of
   Euripus; and landing at Aulis marched into Attica. After
   making himself master of the Piræus, he laid siege to Athens;
   her walls were overthrown; her inhabitants plundered; and the
   Venetians retreated with the spoil to the opposite shores of
   Eubœa. The victorious career of Matthias Corvinus, King of
   Hungary, for a time diverted the Sultan from the war in the
   Morea; but … in the beginning of the year 1470 a fleet of
   108 gallies, besides a number of smaller vessels, manned by a
   force 70,000 strong, issued from the harbour of
   Constantinople, and sailed for the straits of Euripus. … The
   army landed without molestation on the island, which they
   united to the mainland by a bridge of boats, and immediately
   proceeded to lay siege to the city of Negropont. … The hopes
   of the besieged were now centred in the Venetian fleet, which,
   under the command of Nicolo Canale, lay at anchor in the
   Saronic Gulf. But that admiral, whilst he awaited a
   re-inforcement, let slip the favourable opportunity of
   preventing the debarcation of the enemy, or of shutting up the
   Turks in the island by the destruction of their half-deserted
   fleet and bridge of boats. By an unaccountable inactivity, he
   suffered the city to be attacked, which, after a vigorous
   resistance of nearly a month, was carried by assault [July 12,
   1470]; and all the inhabitants, who did not escape into the
   citadel, were put to the sword. At length that fortress was
   also taken; and the barbarous conqueror, who had promised to
   respect the head of the intrepid governor, deemed it no
   violation of his word to saw his victim in halves. After this
   decisive blow, which reduced the whole island, Mahomed led
   back his conquering army to Constantinople. … This success
   encouraged the Turks to attack the Venetians in their Italian
   territory; and the Pasha of Bosnia invaded Istria and Friuli,
   and carried fire and sword almost to the gates of Udine.
   In the following year [1474], however, the Turks were baffled
   in their attempt to reduce Scutari in Albania, which had been
   delivered by the gallant Scanderbeg to the guardian care of
   Venice. Some abortive negotiations for peace suspended
   hostilities until 1477, when the troops of Mahomed laid siege
   to Croia in Albania, which they reduced to the severest
   distress. But a new incursion into Friuli struck a panic into
   the inhabitants of Venice, who beheld, from the tops of their
   churches and towers, the raging flames which devoured the
   neighbouring villages." The Turks, however, withdrew into
   Albania, where the siege of Croia was terminated by its
   surrender and the massacre of its inhabitants, and the Sultan,
   in person, renewed the attack on Scutari. The stubborn
   garrison of that stronghold, however, resisted, with fearful
   slaughter, a continuous assault made upon their walls during
   two days and a night. Mahomed was forced to convert the siege
   into a blockade, and his troops reappeared in Friuli. "These
   repeated aggressions on her territories made Venice every day
   more anxious to conclude a peace with the Sultan," and a
   treaty was signed in April, 1479. "It was agreed that the
   islands of Negropont and Mitylene, with the cities of Croia
   and Scutari in Albania, and of Tenaro in the Morea, should be
   consigned to the Turk; whilst other conquests were to be
   reciprocally restored to their former owners. A tribute of
   10,000 ducats was imposed upon Venice, and the inhabitants of
   Scutari [now reduced to 500 men and 150 women] were to be
   permitted to evacuate the city."

      Sir R. Comyn,
      History of the Western Empire,
      chapter 31 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 5.

GREECE: A. D. 1645-1669.
   The war of Candia.
   Surrender of Crete to the Turks by the Venetians.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1645-1669.

GREECE: A. D. 1684-1696.
   Conquests by the Venetians from the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

GREECE: A. D. 1699.
   Cession of part of the Morea to Venice by the Turks.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

GREECE: A. D. 1714-1718.
   The Venetians expelled again from the Morea by the Turks.
   Corfu defended.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.

GREECE: A. D. 1770-1772.
   Revolt against the Turkish rule.
   Russian encouragement and desertion.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
   Overthrow of Turkish rule.
   Intervention of Russia, England and France.
   Battle of Navarino.
   Establishment of national independence.

   "The Spanish revolution of 1820 [see SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827],
   which was speedily followed by the revolutions of Naples,
   Sicily, and Piedmont, caused a great excitement throughout
   Europe, and paved the way for the Greek revolution of 1821.
   Since the beginning of the century the Greeks had been
   preparing for the struggle; in fact, for more than fifty years
   there had been a general movement in the direction of
   independence. … There had been many insurrections against
   the Turkish authority, but they were generally suppressed
   without difficulty, though with the shedding of much Greek
   blood. Nearly every village in Greece suffered from pillage by
   the Turks, and the families were comparatively few that did
   not mourn a father, son, or brother, killed by the Turks or
   carried into slavery, or a daughter or sister transported to a
   Turkish harem. … Notwithstanding their subjugation, many of
   the Greeks were commercially prosperous, and a large part of
   the traffic of the East was in their hands. They conducted
   nearly all the coasting trade of the Levant, and a few years
   before the revolution they had 600 vessels mounting 6,000 guns
   (for defence against pirates) and manned by 18,000 seamen. …
   In laying their plans for independence the Greeks resorted to
   the formation of secret societies, and so well was the scheme
   conducted that everything was ripe for insurrection before the
   Turkish rulers had any suspicion of the state of affairs. A
   great association was formed which included Greeks everywhere,
   not only in Greece and its islands, but in Constantinople,
   Austria, Germany, England, and other countries, wherever a
   Greek could be found. Men of other nationalities were
   occasionally admitted, but only when their loyalty to the
   Greek cause was beyond question, and their official positions
   gave them a chance to aid in the work. Several distinguished
   Russians were members, among them Count Capo D'Istria, a Greek
   by birth, who held the office of private secretary to the
   Emperor Alexander I. of Russia. The society was known as the
   Hetaira, or Hetairist, and consisted of several degrees or
   grades. The highest contained only sixteen persons, whose
   names were not all known, and it was impossible for any member
   of the lower classes to ascertain them. … All the Hetairists
   looked hopefully towards Russia, partly in consequence of
   their community of religion, and partly because of the
   fellow-feeling of the two countries in cordially detesting the
   Turk. … The immediate cause of the revolution, or rather the
   excuse for it, was the death of the Hospodar of Wallachia,
   January 30, 1821, followed by the appointment of his
   successor. During the interregnum, which naturally left the
   government in a weakened condition, the Hetairists determined
   to strike their blow for liberty. A band of 150 Greeks and
   Arnauts, under the command of Theodore Vladimiruko, formerly a
   lieutenant-colonel in the Russian service, marched out of
   Bucharest and seized the small town of Czernitz, near Trajan's
   Bridge, on the Danube. There Theodore issued a proclamation,
   and such was the feeling of discontent among the people, that
   in a few days he had a force of 12,000 men under his command.
   Soon afterwards there was an insurrection in Jassy, the
   capital of Moldavia, headed by Prince Alexander Ipsilanti, an
   officer in the Russian service. He issued a proclamation in
   which the aid of Russia was distinctly promised, and as the
   news of this proclamation was carried to Greece, there was a
   general movement in favor of insurrection. The Russian
   minister assured the Porte that his government had nothing to
   do with the insurrection, and the Patriarch and Synod of
   Constantinople issued a proclamation emphatically denouncing
   the movement, but in spite of this assurance and proclamation
   the insurrection went on. Count Nesselrode declared officially
   that Ipsilanti's name would be stricken from the Russian army
   list, and that his act was one for which he alone was
   responsible. This announcement was the death-blow of the
   insurrection in Moldavia and Wallachia, as the forces of
   Theodore and Ipsilanti were suppressed, after some sharp
   fighting, by the hordes of Moslems that were brought against
   them. … Nearly the whole of Greece was in full insurrection
   in a few months, and with far better prospects than had the
   insurrection on the Danube.
   Turks and Greeks were embittered against each other; the
   war-cry of the Turk was, 'Death to the Christian!' while that
   of the Christian was, 'Death to the Turk!' The example was set
   by the Turks, and, to the eternal disgrace of the Turkish
   government, slaughter in cold blood was made official. It was
   by the order and authority of the Porte that Gregory,
   Patriarch of Constantinople, a revered prelate, eighty years
   of age, was seized on Easter Sunday, as he was descending from
   the altar where he had been celebrating divine service, and
   hanged at the gate of his archiepiscopal palace, amid the
   shouts and howls of a Moslem mob. After hanging three hours,
   the body was cut down and delivered to some Jews, who dragged
   it about the streets and threw it into the sea, whence it was
   recovered the same night by some Christian fishermen. Some
   weeks later it was taken to Odessa and buried with great
   ceremony. This act of murder was the more atrocious on the
   part of the Turks, since the Patriarch had denounced the
   insurrection in a public proclamation, and his life and
   character were most blameless and exemplary. It is safe to say
   that this barbarity had more to do with fanning the fires of
   revolt than any other act of the Turkish government. But it
   was by no means the only act of the kind of which the Turks
   were guilty. The Patriarch of Adrianople with eight of his
   ecclesiastics was beheaded, and so were the dragoman of the
   Porte and several other eminent residents of Constantinople,
   descended from Greek settlers of two or three centuries ago.
   Churches were everywhere broken open and plundered; Greek
   citizens of the highest rank were murdered, their property
   stolen, and their wives and daughters sold as slaves; on the
   15th of June five archbishops and a great number of laymen
   were hanged in the streets, and 450 mechanics were sold and
   transported into slavery; at Salonica the battlements of the
   town were lined with Christian heads, from which the blood ran
   down and discolored the water in the ditch. In all the great
   towns of the empire there were similar atrocities; some were
   the work of mobs, which the authorities did not seek to
   restrain, but the greater part of them were ordered by the
   governors or other officials, and met the approval of the
   Porte. At Smyrna, the Christian population was massacred by
   thousands without regard to age or sex, and in the island of
   Cyprus a body of 10,000 troops sent by the Porte ravaged the
   island, executed the metropolitan, five bishops, and
   thirty-six other ecclesiastics, and converted the whole island
   into a scene of rapine, bloodshed, and robbery. Several
   thousand Christians were killed before the atrocities ceased,
   and hundreds of their wives and daughters were carried into
   Turkish harems. These and similar outrages plainly told the
   Greeks that no hope remained except in complete independence
   of the Turks, and from one end of Greece to the other the
   fires of insurrection were everywhere lighted. The islands, as
   well as the mainland, were in full revolt, and the fleet of
   coasting vessels, nearly all of them armed for resisting
   pirates, gave the Turks a great deal of trouble. … On the
   land, battle followed battle in different parts of the
   country, and the narration of the events of the insurrection
   would fill a bulky volume. … During the latter part of 1821,
   the advantages to the Greeks were sufficient to encourage them
   to proclaim their independence, which was done in January,
   1822. In the same month the Turks besieged Corinth, and in the
   following April they besieged and captured Chios (Scio),
   ending the capture with the slaughter of 40,000 inhabitants,
   the most horrible massacre of modern times. In July, the
   Greeks were victorious at Thermopylæ; in the same month
   Corinth fell, with great slaughter of the defenders. In April,
   1823, the Greeks held a national congress at Argos; the
   victories of Marco Bozzaris occurred in the following June,
   and in August he was killed in a night attack upon the Turkish
   camp; in August, too, Lord Byron landed at Athens to take part
   in the cause of Greece, which was attracting the attention of
   the whole civilized world. The first Greek loan was issued in
   England in February, 1824; Lord Byron died at Missolonghi in
   the following April; in August the Capitan Pasha was defeated
   at Samos with heavy loss; in October, the provisional
   government of Greece was set up; and the fighting became
   almost continuous in the mountain districts of Greece. In
   February, 1825, Ibrahim Pasha arrived with a powerful army
   from Egypt, which captured Navarino in May, and Tripolitza in
   June of the same year. In July, the provisional government
   invoked the aid of England; in the following April (1826),
   Ibrahim Pasha took Missolonghi after a long and heroic defence
   [for twelve months]; and nearly a year later Reschid Pasha
   captured Athens. Down to the beginning of 1826, the Greeks had
   felt seriously the deprivation of Russian sympathy and aid for
   which they had been led to look before the revolution. The
   death of Alexander I., and the accession of Nicholas in
   December, 1825, caused a change in the situation. The British
   government sent the Duke of Wellington to St. Petersburg
   ostensibly to congratulate Nicholas on his elevation to the
   throne, but really to secure concert of action in regard to
   Greece. On the 4th of April a protocol was signed by the Duke
   of Wellington, Prince Lieven, and Count Nesselrode, which may
   be considered the foundation of Greek independence. Out of
   this protocol grew the treaty of July 6, 1827, between
   England, Russia, and France, by which it was stipulated that
   those nations should mediate between the contending Greeks and
   Turks. They proposed to the Sultan that he should retain a
   nominal authority over the Greeks, but receive from them a
   fixed annual tribute. … The Sultan … refused to listen to
   the scheme of mediation, and immediately made preparations for
   a fresh campaign, and also for the defence of Turkey in case
   of an attack. Ships and reinforcements were sent from
   Constantinople, and the Egyptian fleet, consisting of two
   84-gun ships, twelve frigates, and forty-one transports, was
   despatched from Alexandria with 5,000 troops, and reached
   Navarino towards the end of August, 1827. The allied powers
   had foreseen the possibility of the Porte's refusal of
   mediation, and taken measures accordingly; an English fleet
   under Admiral Sir Edward Codrington, and a French fleet under
   Admiral De Rigny, were in the Mediterranean, and were shortly
   afterwards joined by the Russian fleet under Admiral Heiden.
   … The allied admirals held a conference, and decided to
   notify Ibrahim Pasha that he must stop the barbarities of
   plundering and burning villages and slaughtering their
   But Ibrahim would not listen to their remonstrances, and to
   show his utter disregard for the powers, he commanded four of
   his ships to sail to the Gulf of Patras to occupy Missolonghi
   and relieve some Turkish forts, in effect to clear those
   waters of every Greek man-of-war which was stationed there.
   This he did easily, the allied squadrons being temporarily
   absent. Admiral Codrington pursued him and, without
   difficulty, drove him back to Navarino. … A general muster
   of all the ships was ordered by Admiral Codrington,
   Commander-in-Chief of the squadron. … The allied fleet
   mounted 1,324 guns, while the combined Turkish and Egyptian
   fleet mounted 2,240 guns. To this superiority in the number of
   guns on board must be added the batteries on shore, which were
   all in the hands of the Turks. But the Christians had a point
   in their favor in their superiority in ships of the line, of
   which they possessed ten, while the Turks had but three. …
   The allied fleet entered the Bay of Navarino about two o'clock
   on the afternoon of October 20, 1827. … In less than four
   hours from the beginning of the contest the Ottoman fleet had
   ceased to be. Every armed ship was burnt, sunk, or destroyed;
   the only remaining vessels belonging to the Turks and
   Egyptians were twenty-five of the smallest transports, which
   were spared by order of Admiral Codrington. It was estimated
   that the loss in men on the Turkish and Egyptian vessels was
   fully 7,000. On the side of the allies, no vessels were
   destroyed, but the Asia, Albion, and Genoa of the English
   fleet were so much injured, that Admiral Codrington sent them
   to Malta for repairs which would enable them to stand the
   voyage home to England. Seventy-five men were killed and 197
   wounded on the British fleet, and the loss of the French was
   43 killed and 117 wounded. The Russian loss was not reported.
   … It was feared that when the news of the event at Navarino
   reached Constantinople, the lives of all Europeans in that
   city, including the foreign ambassadors, would be in great
   danger, but happily there was no violence on the part of the
   Turks. The ambassadors pressed for an answer to their note of
   August 16th, and at length the Sultan replied: 'My positive,
   absolute, definitive, unchangeable, eternal answer is, that
   the Sublime Porte does not accept any proposition regarding
   the Greeks, and will persist in its own will regarding them
   even to the last day of judgment.' The Porte even demanded
   compensation for the destruction of the fleet, and
   satisfaction for the insult, and that the allies should
   abstain from all interference in the affairs of Greece. The
   reply of the ambassadors was to the effect that the treaty of
   July obliged them to defend Greece, and that the Turks had no
   claim whatever for reparation for the affair of Navarino. The
   ambassadors left Constantinople on the 8th December, and soon
   afterwards Count Capo D'Istria, who had been elected President
   of Greece, took his seat, and issued a proclamation, declaring
   that the Ottoman rule over the country was at an end after
   three centuries of oppression. Thus was the independence of
   Greece established. There was little fighting after the events
   of Navarino, and early in 1828 Admiral Codrington and Ibrahim
   Pasha held a convention and agreed upon measures for
   evacuating the land of the Hellenes. During the summer and
   autumn Patras, Navarino, and Modon were successively
   surrendered to the French, and the Morea was evacuated by the
   Turks. Missolonghi was surrendered to Greece early in 1829,
   and by the Treaty of Adrianople in September of the same year
   the Porte acknowledged the independence of Greece, which was
   henceforth to be one in the family of nations."

      T. W. Knox,
      Decisive Battles since Waterloo,
      chapter 3.

      ALSO IN:
      C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 2, chapter 4.

      S. G. Howe,
      Historical Sketch of the Greek Revolution.

      T. Gordon,
      History of the Greek Revolution.

      Lord Byron,
      Letters and Journals, 1823-4 (volume 2).

      E. J. Trelawny,
      Records of Shelley, Byron, etc.,
      chapters 19-20 (volume 2).

      S. Walpole,
      History of England,
      chapters 9 and 11 (volume 2).

GREECE: A. D. 1822-1823.
   The Congress of Verona.


GREECE: A. D. 1830-1862.
   The independent kingdom constituted under Otho of Bavaria.
   Its unsatisfactoriness.
   Dethronement of King Otho.
   Election of Prince George of Denmark.

   "On February 3d, 1830, a protocol was signed which constituted
   Greece an independent State; and on the 11th of the same month
   Prince Leopold of Belgium accepted the crown which was offered
   to him by the Powers: He, however, soon resigned the honour;
   giving for his main reason the hopelessness of establishing a
   Greek kingdom from which Krete, Epeiros, and Thessaly were to
   be excluded. The northern boundary, as drawn in 1830,
   stretched from the Gulf of Zeitoun to the mouth of the
   Aspropotamos, thus depriving Greece of the greater part of
   Akarnania and Aitolia. After the assassination [by the family
   of an insurgent chief] of Count Capodistna (who was the
   popularly elected President of Greece from April 14th, 1827,
   to October 9th, 1831), and after the Powers had selected
   Prince Otho of Bavaria for the position declined by Prince
   Leopold, an arrangement was concluded between England, France,
   Russia, and Turkey, whereby the boundary was drawn from the
   Gulf of Arta to the same termination in the Gulf of Zeitoun.
   But a few months later the district of Zeitoun, north of the
   Spercheios, was added to Greece; and the new kingdom paid to
   the Porte an indemnity of 40,000,000 piastres, or about
   £460,000. The Powers guaranteed a loan to Greece of 60,000,000
   francs, out of which the payment of the indemnity was made;
   and thus, at last, in the autumn of 1832, the fatherland of
   the Greeks was redeemed. Under Otho of Bavaria the country was
   governed at first by a Council of Regency, consisting of Count
   Armansperg, Professor Maurer, and General Heideck. Maurer was
   removed in 1834, and Armansperg in 1837; and at the close of
   the latter year, after the trial of another Bavarian as
   president of the Council, a Greek was for the first time
   appointed to the principal post in the Ministry. The greatest
   benefit conferred upon the country by its German rulers was
   the reinforcement of the legal system, and the elevation of
   the authority of the law. But, on the other hand, an
   unfortunate attempt was made to centralize the whole
   administration of Greece, her ancient municipal rights and
   customs were overlooked, taxation was almost as indiscriminate
   and burdensome as under the Turks, whilst large sums of money
   were spent upon the army, and on other objects of an
   unremunerative or insufficiently remunerative character, so
   that the young State was laden with pecuniary liabilities
   before anything had been done to develope her resources. …
   No national assembly was convened, no anxiety was shown to
   conciliate the people, liberty of expression was curtailed,
   personal offence was given by the foreigners, and by
   Armansperg in particular; brigandage and piracy flourished,
   and Greece began to suffer all the evils which might have been
   expected to arise from the government of unsympathetic aliens.
   … In addition to the rapid and alarming increase of
   brigandage by land and piracy by sea, there were popular
   insurrections in Messenia, Maina, Akarnania, and elsewhere.
   One of the most capable Englishmen who have ever espoused the
   cause of the Greeks, General Gordon, was commissioned in 1835
   to clear northern Greece of the marauders by whom it was
   overrun. He executed his mission in an admirable manner,
   sweeping the whole of Phokis, Aitolia, and Akarnania, and
   securing the cooperation of the Turkish Pasha at Larissa.
   Hundreds of brigands were put to flight,—but only to return
   again next year, and to enjoy as great immunity as ever. …
   In the absence of a strong and active organization of the
   national forces, brigandage in Greece was an ineradicable
   institution; and, as a matter of fact, it was not suppressed
   until the year 1870. Gradually the discontent of the people,
   and the feebleness and infatuation of the Government, were
   breeding a revolution. … The three Guaranteeing Powers urged
   on Otho and his advisers the necessity of granting a
   Constitution, which had been promised on the establishment of
   the kingdom; and moral support was thus given to two very
   strong parties, known by the titles of Philorthodox and
   Constitutional, whose leaders looked to Russia and England
   respectively. The King and the Government neglected symptoms
   which were conspicuous to all besides, and the revolution of
   1843 found them practically unprepared and helpless. On the
   15th of September, after a well-contrived demonstration of the
   troops, which was acquiesced in and virtually sanctioned by
   the representatives of the three Powers, King Otho gave way,
   and signed the decrees which had been submitted to him. The
   Bavarian Ministers were dismissed, Mavrokordatos was made
   Premier, a National Assembly was convoked, and a Constitution
   was granted. For the first time since the Roman conquest,
   Greece resumed the dignity of self-government. The
   Constitution of 1844 was by no means an adequate one. It did
   not fully restore the privileges of local self-rule, and it
   only partially modified the system of centralization, from
   which so many evils had sprung. But it was nevertheless a
   great advance towards popular liberty. … The difficulties
   which arose between Russia and Turkey in 1853, and which led
   up to the Crimean War, inspired the Greeks with a hope that
   their 'grand idea'—the inheritance of the dominion of Turkey
   in Europe, so far as the Greek-speaking provinces are
   concerned—might be on the eve of accomplishment. … The
   Russian army crossed the Pruth in July, 1853, and preparations
   were at once made by the Greeks to invade Turkey. … The
   temper of the whole country was such that England and France
   deemed it necessary to take urgent measures for preventing an
   alliance between Russia and Greece. In May, 1854, an
   Anglo-French force was landed at the Peiraios, where it
   remained until February, 1857. Pressure was thus brought to
   bear upon King Otho, who was not in a position to resist it.
   … The humiliation of the Greeks under the foreign occupation
   weakened the authority of the King and his Ministers, and the
   unhappy country was once more a prey to rapine and disorder.
   … From the year 1859 a new portent began to make itself
   apparent in Greece. As the insurrection of 1821 may be said to
   have derived some of its energy from the upheaval of France
   and Europe in the preceding decades, so the Greek revolution
   of 1862 was doubtless hastened, if not suggested, by the
   Italian regeneration of 1848-1861. … On February 13th, 1862,
   the garrison of Nauplia revolted; other outbreaks followed;
   and at last, in October, during an ill-advised absence of the
   Monarch from his capital, the garrison of Athens broke out
   into open insurrection. A Provisional Government was
   nominated; the deposition of King Otho was proclaimed; and
   when the royal couple hurried back to the city they were
   refused an entrance. The representatives of the Powers were
   appealed to in vain; and the unfortunate Bavarian, after
   wearing the crown for thirty years, sailed from the Peiraios
   never to return. The hopes of the Greeks at once centred in
   Prince Alfred of England for their future king. … But the
   agreement of the three Powers on the establishment of the
   kingdom expressly excluded from the throne all members of the
   reigning families of England, France, and Russia; and thus,
   although Prince Alfred was elected king with practical
   unanimity, the English Government would not sanction his
   acceptance of the crown. The choice eventually and happily
   fell upon Prince George of Denmark, the present King of the
   Hellenes; and neither Greece nor Europe has had reason to
   regret the selection. … From this time forward the history
   of modern Greece enters upon a brighter phase."

      L. Sergeant,
      chapter 5.

      ALSO IN:
      L. Sergeant,
      New Greece,
      part 2, chapter 8-10.

GREECE: A. D. 1846-1850.
   Rude enforcement of English claims.
   The Don Pacifico Affair.

   "Greek independence had been established under the joint
   guardianship of Russia, France, and England. Constitutional
   government had been guaranteed. It had however been constantly
   delayed. Otho, the Bavarian Prince, who had been placed upon
   the throne, was absolute in his own tendencies, and supported
   by the absolute Powers; and France, eager to establish her own
   influence in the East, … had sided with the Absolutists,
   leaving England the sole supporter of constitutional rule. The
   Government and administration were deplorably bad. … Any
   demands raised by the English against the Government—and the
   bad administration afforded abundant opportunity for
   dispute—were certain to encounter the opposition of the King,
   supported by the advice of all the diplomatic body. Such
   questions had arisen. Ionians, claiming to be British
   subjects, had been maltreated, the boat's crew of a Queen's
   ship roughly handled, and in two cases the money claims of
   English subjects against the Government disregarded. They were
   trivial enough in themselves; a piece of land belonging to a
   Mr. Finlay [the historian of mediæval and modern Greece], a
   Scotchman, had been incorporated into the royal garden, and
   the price—no doubt somewhat exorbitant—which he set upon it
   refused. The house of Don Pacifico, a Jew, a native of
   Gibraltar, had been sacked by a mob, without due interference
   on the part of the police. He demanded compensation for
   ill-usage, for property destroyed, and for the loss of certain
   papers, the only proof as he declared of a somewhat doubtful
   claim against the Portuguese Government.
   Such claims in the ordinary course of things should have been
   made in the Greek Law Court. But Lord Palmerston, placing no
   trust in the justice to be there obtained, made them a direct
   national claim upon the Government. For several years, on
   various pretences, the settlement of the question had been
   postponed, and Palmerston had even warned Russia that he
   should some day have to put strong pressure upon the Greek
   Court to obtain the discharge of their debts. At length, at
   the close of 1849, his patience became exhausted. Admiral
   Parker, with the British fleet, was ordered to the Piræus. Mr.
   Wyse, the English Ambassador, embarked in it. The claims were
   again formally laid before the King, and upon their being
   declined the Piræus was blockaded, ships of the Greek navy
   captured and merchant vessels secured by way of material
   guarantee for payment. The French and the Russians were
   indignant at this unexpected act of vigour." The Russians
   threatened; the French offered mediation, which was accepted.
   The French negotiations at Athens had no success; but at
   London there was promise of a friendly settlement of the
   matter, when Mr. Wyse, the English Minister at the Greek
   Court, being left in ignorance of the situation, brought fresh
   pressure to bear upon King Otho and extorted payment of his
   claims. The French were enraged and withdrew their Minister
   from London. "For the time, this trumpery little affair caused
   the greatest excitement, and, being regarded as a typical
   instance of Lord Palmerston's management of the Foreign
   Office, it formed the ground of a very serious attack upon the

      J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 4, pages 200-203.

      ALSO IN:
      S. Walpole,
      History of England, from 1815,
      chapter 22 (volume 4).

      J. McCarthy,
      History of Our Own Times,
      chapter 19 (volume 2).

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1849-1850.

GREECE: A. D. 1862.
   Annexation of the Ionian Islands.

      See IONIAN ISLANDS: A. D. 1815-1862.

GREECE: A. D. 1862-1881.
   The Cretan struggle and defeat.
   The Greek question in the Berlin Congress.
   Small cession of territory by Turkey.

   "The annexation of the Heptannesos [the seven (Ionian)
   islands] was a great benefit to Hellas. It was not only a
   piece of good fortune for the present but an earnest of the
   future. … There still remained the delusion of the Integrity
   of the Turkish Empire; but the Christians of the East really
   cannot believe in the sincerity of all the Powers who proclaim
   and sustain this extraordinary figment, any more than they are
   able to fall a prey to the hallucination itself. The reunion
   of the Heptannesos with the rest of Hellas was therefore
   regarded as marking the beginning of another and better era—a
   sanction to the hopes of other re-unions in the future. The
   first of the Hellenes who endeavoured to gain for themselves
   the same good fortune which had fallen upon the Ionians were
   again the Cretans. They defied Turkey for three years,
   1866-7-8. With the exception of certain fortresses, the whole
   island was free. Acts of heroism and sacrifice such as those
   which had rendered glorious the first War of Independence,
   again challenged the attention of the world. Volunteers from
   the West recalled the Philhellenic enthusiasm of old days. The
   Hellenes of the mainland did not leave their brethren alone in
   the hour of danger; they hastened to fight at their side,
   while they opened in their own homes a place of refuge for the
   women and children of the island. Nearly 60,000 fugitives
   found protection there. For a while there was room for
   believing that the deliverance of Crete was at last
   accomplished. Russia and France were favourably disposed.
   Unhappily the good-will of these two Powers could not overcome
   the opposition of England, strongly supported by Austria.
   Diplomacy fought for the enslavement of the Cretans with as
   much persistence and more success than those with which it had
   opposed the deliverance of Greece. Freedom has not yet come
   for Crete. The islanders obtained by their struggle nothing
   but a doubtful amelioration of their condition by means of a
   sort of charter which was extracted from the unwillingness of
   the Porte in 1868, under the name of the 'Organic Regulation.'
   This edict has never been honestly put in force. However, even
   if it had been carried out, it would not have been a
   settlement of the Cretan question. The Cretans have never
   concealed what they want, or ceased to proclaim their
   intention of demanding it until they obtain it. At the time of
   the Congress of Berlin they thought once more that they would
   succeed. They got nothing but another promise from the Porte
   'to enforce scrupulously the Organic Regulation of 1868, with
   such modifications as might be judged equitable.' … The
   history of the Greek Question at the Congress of Berlin and
   the conferences which followed it, is not to be treated in
   detail here. The time is not come for knowing all that took
   place. … We do not know why Hellas herself remained so long
   with her sword undrawn during the Russo-Turkish War—what
   promises or what threats held her back from moving when the
   armies of Russia, checked before Plevna, would have welcomed a
   diversion in the West, and when the Hellenic people both
   within and without the Kingdom were chafing at the do-nothing
   attitude of the Government of Athens. Everyone in Greece felt
   that the moment was come. The measures taken by hordes of
   Bashi-Bazooks were hardly sufficient to repress the
   insurrection which was ready in all quarters, and which at
   length broke out in the mountains of Thessaly. … It was only
   at the last moment, when the war was on the point of being
   closed by the treaty which victorious Russia compelled Turkey
   to grant at San Stefano, that the Greek Government, under the
   Presidency of Koumoundouros, yielded tardily to the pressure
   of the nation, and allowed the army to cross the frontier. It
   was too late for the diversion to be of any use to Russia, and
   it could look for no support from any other Government in
   Europe. This fact was realized at Athens, but men felt, at the
   same time, that it was needful to remind the world at any
   price that there is a Greek Question connected with the
   Eastern Question. The step was taken, but it was taken with a
   hesitation which betrayed itself in act as well as in word.
   … Diplomacy saw the danger of the fresh conflagration which
   the armed intervention of Greece was capable of kindling.
   The utmost possible amount of pressure was therefore brought
   to bear upon the Government of Athens in order to induce it to
   retrace the step, and in the result an order was obtained to the
   Greek Commander-in-Chief to recross the frontier, upon the
   solemn assurance of the great Powers 'that the national
   aspirations and interests of the Greek populations should be
   the subject of the deliberations of the approaching Congress.'
   … On July 5, 1878, the Congress accepted the resolution
   proposed by the French plenipotentiary, 'inviting the Porte to
   come to an understanding with Greece for a rectification of
   the frontiers in Thessaly and Epiros, a rectification which
   may follow the valley of the Peneus upon the Eastern side, and
   that of the Thyamis (or Kalamas) upon the Western.' In other
   words, they assign to Hellas the whole of Thessaly and a large
   part of Epiros. Notwithstanding the abandonment of the island
   of Crete, this was some satisfaction for the wrongs which she
   had suffered at the delimitation of the Kingdom. … But the
   scheme suggested by the Congress and sanctioned by the
   Conference of Berlin on July 1, 1880, was not carried out.
   When Turkey found that she was not confronted by an Europe
   determined to be obeyed, she refused to submit. And then the
   Powers, whose main anxiety was peace at any price, instead of
   insisting upon her compliance, put upon Hellas all the
   pressure which they were able to exercise, to induce her to
   submit the question of the frontiers to a fresh arbitration.
   … Hellas had to yield, and on July 2, 1881, three years
   after the signing of the famous Protocol of Berlin, she signed
   the convention by which Turkey ceded to her the flat part of
   Thessaly and a small scrap of Epiros."

      D. Bikelas,
      Seven Essays on Christian Greece,
      essay 6.

GREECE: A. D. 1864-1893.
   Government under the later constitution.

   A new constitution, framed by the National Assembly, "was
   ratified by the King on November 21, 1864. Abolishing the old
   Senate, it established a Representative Chamber of 150
   deputies, since increased to 190, and again to 307, elected by
   ballot by all males over the age of twenty-one, from equal
   electoral districts (they were afterwards elected by
   nomarchies; the system now is by eparchies). Mr. Sergeant
   gives the number of electors (in 1879) at 311 per 1,000, but I
   do not know what he does with the women and minors, who must
   be about 75 per cent of the population. The present [1893]
   number of electors is 450,000, or 205 per 1,000. The King has
   considerable power: he is irresponsible; he appoints and
   dismisses his ministers and all officers and officials; and he
   can prorogue or suspend Parliament. Nor is his power merely
   nominal. In 1866 the Chamber behaved illegally, and the King
   promptly dissolved it; in 1875 again the King successfully
   steered his country out of a whirlpool of corruption; and,
   lastly, in 1892, his Majesty, finding M. Deleyannes obstinate
   in his financial dilatoriness, dismissed him. … Before King
   Otho there were 4 administrations; under his rule 24 (13
   before the Constitution was granted and 11 after), 10 in the
   interregnum, and 42 under King George. This gives 70
   administrations in 62 years, or about one every 10½ months,
   or, deducting the two kingless periods, 56 administrations in
   60 years—that is, with an average duration of nearly 13
   months. This compares for stability very well with the
   duration of French Ministries, 28 of which have lasted 22
   years, or about 9½ months each. It should also be stated that
   there has been a distinct tendency to greater Ministerial
   longevity of late years in Greece. Under King Otho there were
   seven Parliaments in 18 years, which allows 2 years and 7
   months for each Parliamentary period. Under King George there
   have been 13 in 28 years, or with a life of 2 years and 2
   months each. However, we know that Parliament had not the same
   free play under the first King that it has had under the
   second; and, besides, the present Parliament, considering the
   Prime Minister's enormous majority, is likely to continue some
   time, and bring up the Georgian average. … There have been
   no notable changes of the Greek Constitution since its first
   promulgation, though there has been a natural expansion,
   especially in the judicial section. This very fact is of
   itself a vindication of Hellenic national stability."

      R. A. H. Bickford-Smith,
      Greece under King George,
      chapter 18.

   ----------GREECE: End----------

GREEK, Origin of the name.

      See HELLAS.


      See CHRISTIANLY: A. D. 330-1054.



GREEK EMPIRE, called Byzantine: A.D. 700-1204.



      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453.


   The conquest of Constantinople by the Venetians and the
   Crusaders, in 1204, broke the Byzantine Empire into many
   fragments, some of which were secured by the conquerors and
   loosely bound together in the feudal empire of Romania, while
   others were snatched from the ruin and preserved by the
   Greeks, themselves. For the sovereignty of these latter
   numerous claimants made haste to contend. Three fugitive
   emperors were wandering in the outer territories of the
   shattered realm. One was that Alexius III., whose deposition
   of Isaac Angelos had afforded a pretext for the crusading
   conquest, and who had fled when Isaac was restored. A second
   was Alexius V. (Murtzuphlos), who pushed Isaac Angelos and his
   son Alexius IV. from the shaking throne when Constantinople
   resolved to defend itself against the Christians of the West,
   but who abandoned the city in the last hours of the siege. The
   third was Theodore Lascaris, son-in-law of Alexius III., who
   was elected to the imperial office as soon as the flight of
   Alexius V. became known—even after the besiegers had entered
   the city—and who, then, could do nothing but follow his
   fugitive predecessors. This last was the only one of the three
   who found a piece of defensible territory on which to set up
   his throne. He established himself in Bithynia, associating
   his claims with those of his worthless father-in-law, and
   contenting himself with the title of Despot, at first. But the
   convenient though objectionable father-in-law was not
   permitted to enjoy any share of the sovereignty which he
   acquired. Theodore, in fact, managed his affairs with great
   vigor and skill. The district in which his authority was
   recognized widened rapidly and the city of Nicæa became his
   capital. There, in 1206, he received the imperial crown, more
   formally and solemnly, anew, and rallied the Greek resistance
   which was destined to triumph, a little more than half a
   century later, over the insolent aggression of the Latin West.
   The small empire of Nicæa had to contend, not merely with the
   Latins in Constantinople and Greece, and with the Turkish
   Sultan of Iconium, but also with another ambitious fragment of
   Greek empire at Trebizond, which showed itself persistently
   hostile. His successors, moreover, were in conflict with a
   third such fragment in Europe, at Thessalonica. But, ten years
   after the flight of Theodore from Constantinople, his empire
   of Nicæa "extended from Heracleia on the Black Sea to the head
   of the Gulf of Nicomedia; from thence it embraced the coast of
   the Opsikian theme as far as Cyzicus; and then descending to
   the south, included Pergamus, and joined the coast of the
   Ægean. Theodore had already extended his power over the
   valleys of the Hermus, the Caister, and the Mæander." Theodore
   Lascaris died in 1222, leaving no son, and John Dukas
   Vatatzes, or Vataces as his name is written by some
   historians, a man of eminent abilities and high qualities, who
   had married Theodore's daughter, was elected to the vacant
   throne. He was saluted as John III.—assuming a continuity
   from the Byzantine to the Nicæan series of emperors. In a
   reign of thirty-three years, this prudent and capable emperor,
   as Gibbon expresses the fact, "rescued the provinces from
   national and foreign usurpers, till he pressed on all sides
   the imperial city [Constantinople], a leafless and sapless
   trunk, which must fall at the first stroke of the axe." He did
   not live to apply that blow nor to witness the fall of the
   coveted capital of the East. But the event occurred only six
   years after his death, and owed nothing to the energy or the
   capability of his successors. His son, Theodore II., reigned
   but four years, and left at his death, in 1258, a son, John
   IV., only eight years old. The appointed regent and tutor of
   this youth was soon assassinated, and Michael Paleologos, an
   able officer, who had some of the blood of the imperial
   Angelos family in his veins, was made in the first instance
   tutor to the young emperor, and soon afterwards raised to the
   throne with him as a colleague. In 1260 the new emperor made
   an attack on Constantinople and was repulsed. But on the 25th
   of July in the next year the city was taken by a sudden
   surprise, while 6,000 soldiers of its garrison were absent on
   an expedition against Daphnusia in the Black Sea. It was
   acquired almost without resistance, the Latin emperor, Baldwin
   II., taking promptly to flight. The destruction of life was
   slight; but the surprising party fired a considerable part of
   the city, to cover the smallness of its numbers, and
   Constantinople suffered once more from a disastrous
   conflagration. On the recovery of its ancient capital, the
   Greek empire ceased to bear the name of Nicæa, and its history
   is continued under the more imposing appellation of the Greek
   empire of Constantinople.

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
      from 716 to 1453,
      book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 62.


      See TREBIZOND: A. D. 1204-1461.


   "The important secret of compounding and directing this
   artificial flame was imparted [in the later part of the
   seventh century to the Greeks, or Byzantines, at
   Constantinople] by Callinicus, a native of Heliopolis, in
   Syria, who deserted from the service of the caliph to that of
   the emperor. The skill of a chemist and engineer was
   equivalent to the succour of fleets and armies; and this
   discovery or improvement of the military art was fortunately
   reserved for the distressful period when the degenerate Romans
   of the East were incapable of contending with the warlike
   enthusiasm and youthful vigour of the Saracens. The historian
   who presumes to analyze this extraordinary composition should
   suspect his own ignorance and that of his Byzantine guides, so
   prone to the marvellous, so careless, and, in this instance,
   so jealous of the truth. From their obscure, and perhaps
   fallacious hints, it should seem that the principal ingredient
   of the Greek fire was the naphtha, or liquid bitumen, a light,
   tenacious, and inflammable oil, which springs from the earth.
   … The naphtha was mingled, I know not by what methods or in
   what proportions, with sulphur and with the pitch that is
   extracted from evergreen firs. From this mixture, which
   produced a thick smoke and a loud explosion, proceeded a
   fierce and obstinate flame … ; instead of being extinguished
   it was nourished and quickened by the element of water; and
   sand, urine, or vinegar were the only remedies that could damp
   the fury of this powerful agent. … It was either poured from
   the ramparts [of a besieged town] in large boilers, or
   launched in red-hot balls of stone and iron, or darted in
   arrows and javelins, twisted round with flax and tow, which
   had deeply imbibed the inflammable oil; sometimes it was
   deposited in fire-ships … and was most commonly blown
   through long tubes of copper, which were planted on the prow
   of a galley, and fancifully shaped into the mouths of savage
   monsters, that seemed to vomit a stream of liquid and
   consuming fire. This important art was preserved at
   Constantinople, as the palladium of the state. … The secret
   was confined, above 400 years, to the Romans of the East. …
   It was at length either discovered or stolen by the
   Mahometans; and, in the holy wars of Syria and Egypt, they
   retorted an invention, contrived against themselves, on the
   heads of the Christians. … The use of the Greek, or, as it
   might now be called, the Saracen fire, was continued to the
   middle of the fourteenth century."

      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 52.


      See HELLENIC GENIUS, &c.

GREELEY, Horace,
   The Peace Conference at Niagara.


   Presidential candidacy and defeat.


GREEN, Duff, in the "Kitchen Cabinet" of President Jackson.



      See VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.



GREENE, General Nathaniel, and the American Revolution.

      A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST); 1780-1781;
      and 1781 (JANUARY-MAY).

   ----------GREENLAND: Start--------

GREENLAND: A D.876-984.
   Discovery and settlement by the Northmen.

      See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: A. D. 876-984.

GREENLAND: A. D. 1450-1585.
   The lost Icelandic colony, absorbed by Eskimo. Rediscovery of
   the country.


   ----------GREENLAND: End----------


GREENS, Roman Faction of the.



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



GREGORY I. (called The Great), Pope, A. D. 590-604.
   Gregory II., Pope, 715-731.
   Gregory III., Pope, 731-741.
   Gregory IV., Pope, 827-844.
   Gregory V., Pope, 996-999.
   Gregory VI., Pope, 1044-1046.
   Gregory VII., Pope, 1075-1085.
   Gregory VIII., Pope, 1187, October to December.
   Gregory IX., Pope, 1227-1241.
   Gregory X., Pope, 1271-1276.
   Gregory XI., Pope, 1371-1378.
   Gregory XII., Pope, 1406-1415.
   Gregory XIII., Pope, 1572-1585.
   Gregory XIV., Pope, 1590-1591.
   Gregory XV., Pope, 1621-162.
   Gregory XVI., Pope, 1831-1846.


      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1763; and 1765-1768.

GRÉVY, Jules, President of the French Republic, 1879-1887.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

GREY, Earl, The Ministry of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830-1832; and 1834-1837.




      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

GREYS, OR BIGI, of Florence, The.

      See BIGI.


      A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: MISSISSIPPI).


   "The Griquas or Baastards, a mixed race sprung from the
   intercourse of the 'Boers' [of South Africa] with their
   Hottentot slaves," migrated from Cape Colony after the
   Emancipation Act of 1833, "and, under the chiefs Waterboer and
   Adam Kok, settled in the country north of the confluence of
   the Orange and Vaal, the present Griqualand West.
   Subsequently, in 1852, Adam Kok's section of the Griquas again
   migrated to the territory then called No Man's Land, between
   Kafraria and southern Natal, now known as Griqualand East, or
   New Griqualand. … In consequence of the discovery of
   diamonds in the Griqua country in 1867, and the rush thither
   of thousands of Europeans from all the surrounding states, as
   well as from Europe, America, and Australia, the chief
   Waterboer ceded his rights to the British Government, and this
   region was annexed to the Cape Colony as the
   Lieutenant-Governorship of Griqualand West in 1871."

      Africa (Stanford's Compendium),
      chapter 23, section 5.

   ----------GRISONS: Start--------

   Achievement of democratic independence.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

GRISONS: The Valtelline revolt and war.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

   ----------GRISONS: End----------

GROCHOW, Battles of (1831).

      See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

GROL, Capture of (1627).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

   Capture by Prince Maurice.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.



GROSS BEEREN, Battle of.

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


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


      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.


      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

GROTIUS, HUGO, Imprisonment and escape of.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

GROVETON, Battle of.

      A. D. 1862 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).


      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 376.

GRÜTLI, OR RÜTLI, The Meadow of.


GRYNEUM, The Oracle of.


GUADACELITO OR SALADO, Battle of (1340).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.

GUADALETE, Battle of the.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.


      See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.







GUANAJUATO, Battles of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.




      See LIBYANS.



GUASTALLA, Battle of (1734).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

   ----------GUATEMALA: Start--------

   The name.

   "According to Fuentes y Guzman, derived from 'Coctecmalan'
   —that is to say 'Palo de leche,' milk-tree, commonly called
   'Yerba mala,' found in the neighborhood of Antigua Guatemala.
   … In the Mexican tongue, if we may believe Vasquez, it was
   called 'Quauhtimali,' rotten-tree. … Others derive it from
   'Uhatezmalha,' signifying 'the hill which discharges water';
   and Juarros suggests that it may be from Juitemal, the first
   king of Guatemala."

      H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, page 620, foot-note.

   Aboriginal inhabitants, and ruins of Ancient Civilization.

      also, MEXICO, ANCIENT.

GUATEMALA: A. D. 1524.
   Conquest by Alvarado, the lieutenant of Cortes.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.

GUATEMALA: A. D. 1821-1871.
   Separation from Spain.
   Brief annexation to Mexico.
   Resistance to Central American Federation.
   The wars of the states.

      See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

   ----------GUATEMALA: End----------






   ----------GUELDERLAND: Start--------

GUELDERLAND: A. D. 1079-1473.
   Under the House of Nassau.
   Acquisition by the Duke of Burgundy.

   "The arable extent of Guelderland, its central position, and
   the number of its ancient towns, rendered it at all times of
   great importance. The men of Zutphen and Arnheim were foremost
   among the claimants of civic freedom; and at Tiel and Bommel
   industry struck early root, and struggled bravely to maturity
   through countless storms of feudal violence and rapine.
   Guelderland was constituted a county, or earldom, by Henry
   III. [Emperor, A. D. 1079], and bestowed on Otho, count of
   Nassau; and thus originated the influence of that celebrated
   family in the affairs of the Netherlands. Three centuries
   later the province was created a duchy of the empire. Vigour
   and ability continued to distinguish the house of Nassau, and
   they were destined to become eventually the most popular and
   powerful family in the nation. Apart from their influence,
   however, Guelderland hardly occupies as important a place in
   the general history of the country as Utrecht or Holland." In
   1473, when the House of Burgundy had acquired sovereignty over
   most of the Netherland states, Charles the Bold availed
   himself of a domestic quarrel between the reigning prince of
   Guelderland and his heir "to purchase the duchy from the
   former for 92,000 crowns of gold. The old duke died before the
   pecuniary portion of the bargain was actually completed; and,
   the rightful heir being detained in prison, the grasping lord
   of Burgundy entered into possession of his purchase, for which
   no part of the price was ever paid."

      W. T. McCullagh,
      Industrial History of Free Nations,
      chapters 8 and 10 (volume 2).

   The Spanish province ceded to Prussia.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

   ----------GUELDERLAND: End----------

GUELF PARTY, Captains of the.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1358.

   Guelfic origin of the House of Hanover, or Brunswick-Lüneburg.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1714;
      and ESTE, HOUSE OF.

   ----------GUELFS: Start--------

   German origin of these Factions and their feuds.

   On the death (A. D. 1125) of Henry V., the last of the
   Franconian dynasty of Germanic emperors, Lothaire, Duke of
   Saxony, was elected emperor, in rather a tumultuous and
   irregular manner. Lothaire, and the Saxons generally, were
   embittered in enmity against the house of Franconia, and
   against the new family—the Suabiau or Hohenstauffen—which
   succeeded by inheritance, through the female line, to the
   Franconian claims. It was the object of his reign, moreover,
   to pass the imperial crown from his own head to that of his
   son-in-law, Henry the Proud. Hence arose a persecution of the
   Suabian family, under Lothaire, which stirred deep passions.
   Henry the Proud, for whose succession Lothaire labored, but
   vainly, united in himself several ancient streams of noble
   blood. He "was fourth in descent from Welf [or Guelf], son of
   Azon marquis of Este, by Cunegonda, heiress of a distinguished
   family, the Welfs of Altorf in Suabia." His ancestor, Welf,
   had been invested with the duchy of Bavaria. He himself
   represented, by right of his mother, the ancient ducal house
   of Saxony; and, by favor of his imperial father-in-law, the
   two powerful duchies, Bavaria and Saxony, were both conferred
   on him. He also received Hanover and Brunswick as the dowry of
   his wife. "On the death of Lothaire in 1138 the partisans of
   the house of Suabia made a hasty and irregular election of
   Conrad [one of the Hohenstauffen princes], in which the Saxon
   faction found itself obliged to acquiesce. The new emperor
   availed himself of the jealousy which Henry the Proud's
   aggrandizement had excited. Under pretence that two duchies
   could not legally be held by the same person, Henry was
   summoned to resign one of them, and on his refusal, the diet
   pronounced that he had incurred a forfeiture of both. Henry
   made but little resistance, and before his death, which
   happened soon afterwards, saw himself stripped of all his
   hereditary as well as acquired possessions. Upon this occasion
   the famous names of Guelf [or Guelph] and Ghibelin were first
   heard, which were destined to keep alive the flame of civil
   dissension in far distant countries, and after their meaning
   had been forgotten. The Guelfs, or Welfs, were, as I have
   said, the ancestors of Henry, and the name has become a sort
   of patronymic in his family. The word Ghibelin is derived from
   Wibelung, a town in Franconia, whence the emperors of that
   line are said to have sprung. The house of Suabia were
   considered in Germany as representing that of Franconia; as
   the Guelfs may, without much impropriety, be deemed to
   represent the Saxon line."

      H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 5 (volume 2).

   Sir Andrew Halliday, in his "Annals of the House of Hanover,"
   traces the genealogy of the Guelfs with great minuteness and
   precision—with more minuteness, perhaps, in some remote
   particulars, and more precision, than seems consistent with
   entire credibility. He carries the line back to Edico, king or
   prince of the Heruli, or Rugii, or Scyrii,—the stock from
   which came Odoacer, who overturned the Western Roman Empire
   and made himself the first king of Italy. Edico, who was
   subject to Attila, and the favorite adviser of the king of the
   Huns, is thought to have had a son or brother named Guelf or
   Welf, who fell in battle with the Ostrogoths. It is to him
   that Sir Andrew is disposed to assign the honor of being the
   historical chief of the great family of the Guelfs. If not
   from this shadowy Guelf, it is from another of like name in
   the next generation—a brother of Odoacer—that he sees the
   family spring, and the story of its wide-branching and
   many-rooted growth, in Friuli, Altdorf, Bavaria, old Saxony,
   Brunswick, Hanover,—and thence, more royally than ever, in
   England,—is as interesting as a narrative of highly
   complicated genealogy can be.

      Sir A. Halliday,
      Annals of the House of Hanover.

   From the Guelf uncertainly indicated above were descended two
   Marquesses of Este, "successively known in German and Italian
   story as the first and second of that name. … Azo, the
   second Marquess of Este in Italy (born A. D. 995, died 1097),
   the head of the Italian (junior) branch of Guelphs [see ESTE],
   married Cunigunda, the sole heiress of the German Guelphs of
   Altdorf, thus uniting in his family the blood, wealth, and
   power of both branches of the old Guelphs, and becoming the
   common father of the later German and Italian princes of the
   name of Guelph.
   No wonder, then, that he was elected by the Emperor, Henry
   III., as his representative in Italy. … Cunigunda, the first
   wife of Azo II., bore him one son, Guelph, who was known in
   German history as Guelph VI. He succeeded to his mother's
   titles and vast estates on her death, A. D. 1055, and to those
   of his father, A. D. 1097. … Henry IV. invested him with the
   Duchy of Bavaria, A. D. 1071—a title first assumed 170 years
   before (A. D. 900) by his almost mythological ancestor, Henry
   of the Golden Chariot." This Guelph VI. was the grandfather of
   Henry the Proud, Duke of Saxony and Bavaria, referred to

      P. M. Thornton,
      The Brunswick Accession,
      chapter 1.

      ALSO IN:
      O. Browning,
      Guelfs and Ghibellines.

      See, also,
      SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268;
      and, also, ESTE, HOUSE OF.

   The outcrop of the contention in Italy.
   Its beginnings, causes, course and meaning.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1215;
      and FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

   ----------GUELFS: End----------

GUÉLFS. White and Black (Bianchi and Neri).

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

GUELPHS OF HANOVER, The Order of the.

   "The Hanoverian troops having much distinguished themselves at
   the battle of Waterloo, George IV. (then prince regent)
   determined to found an order of merit which might, with
   especial propriety, be conferred upon such of them as deserved
   the distinction, and the 12th of August, 1815, was fixed upon
   as the date of its foundation. By the second statute, the
   Order is inseparably annexed to the possession of the
   Hanoverian crown, by vesting the grand-mastership in the
   sovereign of that country for the time being."

      C. R. Dodd,
      Manual of Dignities,
      part 3.

GUERANDE. Treaty of.

      See BRITTANY: A. D. 1341-1365.

GUERNSEY, The Isle of.



      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865.


   A term of Spanish origin, derived from 'guerilla', signifying
   little or petty warfare, and applied to small, irregular bands
   of troops, carrying on war against an enemy by harassing,
   destructive raids.


      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.

   ----------GUIANA: Start--------

GUIANA: The aboriginal inhabitants.


GUIANA: 16th Century.
   The search for El Dorado.

      See EL DORADO.

GUIANA: A. D. 1580-1814.
   Dutch, French and English settlements and conquests.

   "There was one European nation which was not likely to hunt
   for a golden city, when gold was to be earned by plain and
   matter of fact commerce. The Dutch had as early as 1542
   established a systematic if contraband trade with the Spanish
   Main; and in 1580 they began to settle in Guiana by planting a
   depot on the river Pomeroon, in what is now the county of
   Essequibo. In 1599 they built two forts at the mouth of the
   Amazon, but were driven out by the Portuguese; and about 1613
   they established a colony on the Essequibo, building the fort
   of 'Kyk over al', 'Look over all,' on an island where the
   Massaruni flows into the Essequibo. The colony was founded by
   Zeeland merchants, was known as Nova Zeelandia, and came under
   the control of the Netherlands West India Company, which was
   incorporated in 1621. Shortly afterwards colonisation began
   further to the east on the Berbice river. The founder was a
   Flushing merchant, Van Peere by name; he founded his
   settlement about 1624, and he held his rights under contract
   with the Chamber of Zeeland. … Thus was the present province
   of British Guiana colonised by Dutchmen. … While English
   discovery was attracted to the west and Orinoco, the first
   attempts at English settlement were far to the east on the
   Wyapoco or Oyapok river. Here, in 1604, while Ralegh was in
   prison, Captain Charles Leigh founded a colony at the mouth of
   the river. … In 1609 Robert Harcourt of Stanton Harcourt in
   Oxfordshire took up the work in which Leigh had failed. … In
   1613 he obtained from King James a grant of 'all that part of
   Guiana or continent of America lying between the river of
   Amazones and the river of Dessequebe,' which was not actually
   possessed or inhabited by any Christian power in friendship
   with England. … In 1619 a scheme was started for an Amazon
   Company, the leading spirit in which was Captain Roger North.
   … The company was fortunate enough to secure the powerful
   patronage of the Duke of Buckingham. Harcourt threw in his lot
   with them, and on the 19th of May 1627 a royal grant was made
   to the Duke of Buckingham and 55 other adventurers, including
   the Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, who were incorporated
   under the title of 'the governor and company of noblemen and
   gentlemen of England for the plantation of Guiana.' The Duke
   of Buckingham was Governor, North was Deputy-Governor, and the
   grant included the 'royal' river of the Amazon. For about two
   years the company did some solid work, sending out four ships
   and 200 colonists; an attempt was then made in 1629 to bring
   the territory covered by their grant immediately under royal
   protection, and upon its failure their efforts at colonisation
   appear to have gradually died away. The English were not the
   only Europeans who tried their hand at settlement in the east
   of Guiana. … In 1613, 160 French families settled in
   Cayenne. The first colony failed, but in 1624 and 1626 fresh
   attempts were made a little to the west on the rivers Sinamari
   and Cananama; and in 1643 a Rouen Company, incorporated under
   the name of the Cape North Company, sent out three or four
   hundred men to Cayenne under the Sieur de Bretigny. Bretigny
   ruined the scheme by savage ill-treatment of Indians and
   colonists alike, and the remains of the settlement were
   absorbed by a new and more powerful Normandy Company." This
   failed in its turn, and gave way to a "French Equinoctial
   Company," organized under the auspices of Colbert, which sent
   out 1,200 colonists and fairly established them at Cayenne.
   Colbert, in 1665, placed the colony, "with all the other
   French possessions in the West Indies, under one strong West
   India Company. Such were the beginnings of colonisation in the
   west and east of Guiana. Between them lies the district now
   known as Dutch Guiana or Surinam." The first settlement in
   this was made in 1630 by 60 English colonists, under a Captain
   The colony failed, and was revived in 1650 by Lord Willoughby,
   then representing the fugitive King Charles II., as Governor
   of Barbadoes. In 1663, after the Restoration, Lord Willoughby,
   in conjunction with Lawrence Hyde, second son of the Earl of
   Clarendon, received Letters Patent "constituting them lords
   and proprietors of the district between the Copenam and the
   Maroni (which included the Surinam river) under the name of
   Willoughby Land." Soon afterwards "war broke out with the
   Dutch, and in March 1667 the colony capitulated to the Dutch
   admiral Crynsenn. The peace of Breda between Great Britain and
   the Netherlands, which was signed in the following July,
   provided that either nation should retain the conquests which
   it had made by the preceding 10th of May, and under this
   arrangement Surinam was ceded to the Netherlands, while New
   York became a British possession. … Thus ended for many long
   years all British connexion with Guiana. … When at length
   the English returned [in 1796 and 1803, during the subjection
   of the Dutch to Napoleon, and while they were forced to take
   part in his wars], they came as conquerors rather than as
   settlers, and by a strange perversity of history, the original
   Dutch colonies on the Berbice and Essequibo became a British
   dependency, while the Netherlanders retain to this day the
   part of Guiana which Lord Willoughby marked out for his own."
   These arrangements were settled in the convention between
   Great Britain and the Netherlands signed at London in 1814.

      C. P. Lucas,
      History Geography of the British Colonies,
      volume 2, section 2, chapter 8.

      ALSO IN:
      H. G. Dalton,
      History of British Guiana.

   ----------GUIANA: End--------


   A corruption of the name of Aquitaine, which came into use,
   apparently, about the 13th century.

      See AQUITAINE: A. D. 884-1151.


   "The history of the Gild Merchant begins with the Norman
   Conquest. The latter widened the horizon of the English
   merchant even more than that of the English annalist. The
   close union between England and Normandy led to an increase in
   foreign commerce, which in turn must have greatly stimulated
   internal trade and industry. Moreover, the greatly enhanced
   power of the English crown tempered feudal turbulence,
   affording a measure of security to traders in England that was
   as yet unknown on the continent. … With this expansion of
   trade the mercantile element would become a more potent factor
   in town life, and would soon feel the need of joint action to
   guard its nascent prosperity against encroachments. Not until
   there was something of importance to protect, not until trade
   and industry began to predominate over agriculture within the
   borough, would a protective union like the Gild Merchant come
   into being. Its existence, in short, presupposes a greater
   mercantile and industrial development than that which
   prevailed in England in the tenth century. This circumstance
   and the absence of all mention of the Gild Merchant in the
   records of the Anglo-Saxon period render it probable that this
   fraternity first appeared in England soon after the Conqueror
   had established his sway and restored order in the land.
   Whether it was merely a reorganization of older gilds, a
   spontaneous adaptation of the gild idea to the newly-begotten
   trade interests, or a new institution directly transplanted
   from Normandy, we have no means of determining with certainty.
   The last-mentioned view is strongly favoured by the
   circumstance that, at the time of the Conquest, the Gild
   Merchant doubtless existed in Northern France and Flanders.
   From the Frenchmen who became burgesses of English towns, and
   from the Norman merchants who thronged the marts of England
   after the Conquest, the English would soon ascertain the
   advantages of formal trade organization. The earliest distinct
   references to the Gild Merchant occur in a charter granted by
   Robert Fitz-Hamon to the burgesses of Burford (1087-1107), and
   in a document drawn up while Anselm was Archbishop of
   Canterbury (1093-1109). … Whether we place the inception of
   the fraternity immediately before or after the Norman
   Conquest, whether we make it a continuation of older
   Anglo-Saxon gilds, or a derivative from Normandy, or a wholly
   new and spontaneous growth, it was doubtless at first merely a
   private society, unconnected with the town government, having
   for its object the protection of its members, the tradesmen of
   the borough, and the maintenance of the newly invigorated
   trade interests. During the twelfth century it gradually
   became a recognised part of the town constitution, thus
   entering upon its second stage of development. How this came
   to pass can be easily realised from the later history of
   English gilds in general. For in the fourteenth and fifteenth
   centuries … a simple social-religious gild at times
   attained such power in a community that it came to be regarded
   as an important constituent element of the civic
   administration. Quite similar must have been the growth of the
   Gild Merchant, which from the outset was doubtless composed of
   the most influential burgesses, and which, as the exponent of
   the mercantile interests, must always have been greatly
   concerned in the increase of the privileges and prosperity of
   the borough in general. It was very natural that the town
   authorities should use such a society for public purposes,
   entrusting to it the surveillance of the trade monopoly, in
   which its members were particularly interested,—allowing it
   to gradually become an important part of the civic
   administrative machinery. … The beginning of this third and
   final stage of development cannot be definitely fixed; for in
   some places it was of an earlier date than in others. The
   fourteenth century may in general be called the period of
   gradual transition. In the fifteenth century the
   transformation was completed. In this and the following
   centuries the term 'Gilda Mercatoria' became less and less
   frequent. In many places it soon wholly disappeared. Where it
   continued to subsist, the Gild no longer had an individuality
   of its own. Its alderman and other peculiar officers, its
   whole organization as a distinctive entity, had vanished. It
   had merged its identity in that of the general municipal
   organism. The head of the fraternity was now the head of the
   town; borough and Gild, burgesses and gildsmen were now
   identical. What had once been a distinct integral part of the
   civic body politic became vaguely blended with the whole of it.
   The old Gild Merchant was now rarely mentioned in connection
   with the municipal trade restrictions and regulations, the
   latter being commonly applied to burgesses, craftsmen,
   freemen, or 'foreigners.' The exegesis of this transformation
   … was due mainly to three causes: (1) the expansion of trade
   and the multiplication of the craft and mercantile
   fraternities, which absorbed the ancient functions of the Gild
   Merchant and rendered it superfluous; (2) the growth of the
   select governing body, which usurped most of the privileges of
   the old burghers at large, and hence tended to obliterate the
   distinction between them, or their less privileged successors,
   and the ancient gildsmen, leaving both only certain trade
   immunities; (3) the decay of the leet—the rallying point of
   the old burghers as distinguished from that of the
   gildsmen—the functions of which passed, in part, to the crafts,
   but mainly to the select body and to the justices of the
   peace. But even after the Gild Merchant and the borough had
   thus become identical, the old dual idea did not completely
   disappear, the Gild being often regarded as a particular phase
   or function of the town, namely, the municipality in its
   character of a trade monopoly. Hence the modern survivals of
   the Gild Merchant help to elucidate its actual functions in
   ancient times. In a few boroughs the select governing body of
   the town—the narrow civic corporation, in distinction from
   the burgesses or freemen at large—succeeded to the name and
   traditions of the Gild Merchant. In some of these cases the
   signification of the latter gradually dwindled down to a
   periodical civic feast of the privileged few. … In the
   eighteenth century we meet the word much less frequently than
   in the seventeenth; and toward the beginning of the present
   century it became very rare. The Municipal Corporations
   Commission, in 1835, found it still used in only a few
   boroughs. The remnants of the Gild Merchant and of the craft
   fraternities were rapidly vanishing before the new ideas of a
   more liberal age,—the age of laissez faire. The onerous,
   self-destructive restrictions of gilds were now being
   superseded by the stimulating measures of Chambers of
   Commerce. More than six centuries elapsed before the enactment
   of Magna Carta that all merchants 'may go through England, by
   land and water, to buy and sell, free from all unjust
   imposts,' became a realised fact throughout the realm. The
   Municipal Corporations Act of 1835 provided that 'every person
   in any borough may keep any shop for the sale of all lawful
   wares and merchandizes by wholesale or retail, and use every
   lawful trade, occupation, mystery, and handicraft, for hire,
   gain, sale, or otherwise, within any borough.' In a single
   town of England the Gild Merchant still subsists, but only as
   the shadow of its former self—a spectre from the distant
   past. At Preston the Gild Merchant has been 'celebrated'
   regularly once every twenty years for more than three
   centuries, on which occasions the burgesses renew their
   freedom and indulge in all the festivities of a civic
   carnival. The last Gild Merchant was held in 1882. There was
   then much feasting and dancing, there were gay processions of
   townsmen, and much talk of the glories of the past. And yet
   how few even of the scholars and noblemen there assembled from
   various parts of Great Britain knew what an important role the
   Gild Merchant had played in the annals of English municipal
   history, what strange vicissitudes it had undergone, what a
   remarkable transformation the centuries had wrought in it."

      C. Gross,
      The Gild Merchant,
      chapters 1 and 9 (volume 1).

   "The rise of the craft gilds is, roughly speaking, a century
   later [than the rise of the merchant gilds]; isolated examples
   occur early in the twelfth century, they become more numerous
   as the century advances, and in the thirteenth century they
   appear in all branches of manufacture and in every industrial
   centre. Craft gilds were associations of all the artisans
   engaged in a particular industry in a particular town, for
   certain common purposes. … Their appearance marks the second
   stage in the history of industry, the transition from the
   family system to the artisan (or gild) system. In the former
   there was no class of artisans properly so called; no class,
   that is to say, of men whose time was entirely or chiefly
   devoted to a particular manufacture; and this because all the
   needs of a family or other domestic group, whether of
   monastery or manor-house, were satisfied by the labours of the
   members of the group itself. The latter, on the contrary, is
   marked by the presence of a body of men each of whom was
   occupied more or less completely in one particular
   manufacture. The very growth from the one to the other system,
   therefore, is an example of 'division of labour,' or, to use a
   better phrase, of 'division of employments.' … When the
   place of the young manufactures of the twelfth century in the
   development of mediæval society is thus conceived, the
   discussion as to a possible Roman 'origin' of the gilds loses
   much of its interest. No doubt modern historians have
   exaggerated the breach in continuity between the Roman and the
   barbarian world; no doubt the artisans in the later Roman
   Empire had an organization somewhat like that of the later
   gilds. Moreover, it is possible that in one or two places in
   Gaul certain artisan corporations may have had a continuous
   existence from the fifth to the twelfth century. It is even
   possible that Roman regulations may have served as models for
   the organization of servile artisans on the lands of
   monasteries and great nobles,—from which, on the continent,
   some of the later craft gilds doubtless sprang. But when we
   see that the growth of an artisan class, as distinguished from
   isolated artisans here and there, was impossible till the
   twelfth century, because society had not yet reached the stage
   in which it was profitable or safe for a considerable number
   of men to confine themselves to any occupation except
   agriculture; and that the ideas which governed the craft gilds
   were not peculiar to themselves but common to the whole
   society of the time; then the elements of organization which
   may conceivably have been derived from or suggested by the
   Roman artisan corporations become of quite secondary
   importance. There is, as we have said, little doubt that some
   of the craft gilds of France and Germany were originally
   organizations of artisan serfs on the manors of great lay or
   ecclesiastical lords. This may also have been the case in some
   places in England, but no evidence has yet been adduced to
   show that it was so. … The relation of the craft gilds to
   the merchant gild is a still more difficult question. In many
   of the towns of Germany and the Netherlands a desperate
   struggle took place during the thirteenth and fourteenth
   centuries between a burgher oligarchy, who monopolized the
   municipal government, and were still further strengthened in
   many cases by union in a merchant gild, and the artisans
   organized in their craft gilds; the craftsmen fighting first
   for the right of having gilds of their own, and then for a
   share in the government of the town.
   These facts have been easily fitted into a symmetrical theory
   of industrial development; the merchant gilds, it is said,
   were first formed for protection against feudal lords, but
   became exclusive, and so rendered necessary the formation of
   craft gilds; and in the same way the craft gilds became
   exclusive afterwards, and the journeymen were compelled to
   form societies of their own for protection against the
   masters. … The very neatness of such a theory, the readiness
   with which it has been accepted by popular writers in spite of
   the paucity of English evidence, have perhaps led some
   historians to treat it with scant consideration. … At the
   end of the reign of Edward III. there were in London
   forty-eight companies or crafts, each with a separate
   organization and officers of its own, a number which had
   increased to at least sixty before the close of the century."

      W. J. Ashley,
      An Introduction to English Economic History and Theory,
      book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

   "The unions known by the names of mystery, faculty, trade,
   fellowship, or (from the fact of possessing particular
   costumes) livery company, existed in large numbers throughout
   the realm, and were frequently divided into two or three
   categories. Thus in London the principal crafts were the
   twelve 'substantial companies' or 'livery companies' [Mercers,
   Grocers, Drapers, Fishmongers, Goldsmiths, Skinners, Merchant
   Tailors, Haberdashers, Salters, Ironmongers, Vintners,
   Cloth-workers]. … A perfect acquaintance with the details of
   the trade and the desire as well as the ability to produce
   good work were in all cases preliminary requisites [of
   membership]. In fact the main provisions of the craft, the
   very soul of its constitution, were the regulations intended
   to ensure the excellence of the products and the capacity of
   the workman. … The whole character of the craft guild is
   explained by these regulations, designed to prevent fraud and
   deception of the public."

      E. R. A. Seligman,
      Mediæval Guilds of England
      (American Economics Association,
      volume 2, number 5), part 2, section 2.

      ALSO IN:
      W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 11.

      W. Herbert,
      History of Twelve Great Livery Companies.

      See, also, COMMUNE.


   "In the course of the tenth century Bruges had waxed great and
   wealthy through its trade with England, while the Ghent people
   constructed a port at the junction of their two rivers. The
   Flemings, nevertheless, were still noted for the boorishness
   of their demeanour, their addiction to intemperance, and their
   excessive turbulence. Their pagan ancestors had been
   accustomed to form associations for their mutual protection
   against accidents by fire or water, and similar misadventures.
   These unions were called 'Minne,' or Friendships—an idea
   reproduced in the 'Amicitiæ,' to which allusion is so
   frequently made in the deeds of ancient corporations. …
   After a time the name of 'Minne' came to be supplanted by that
   of 'Ghilde,' meaning a feast at the common expense. Each
   ghilde was placed under the tutelage of a departed hero, or
   demigod, and was managed by officers elected by the members—
   social equality being the foundation of each fraternity.
   Subsequent to the introduction of Christianity the demigod was
   replaced by a saint, while the members were enjoined to
   practise works of piety. … The Ghildes were the base of the
   municipal administration, and gradually assumed the government
   of the town, but took another form and appellation. The word
   was thenceforward applied, in its restricted sense of Guild,
   as referring to trade corporations, while the previous
   organisation came to be described in French and Latin
   documents as Commune or Communia, and embraced all who were
   entitled to gather together in the cauter, or public place,
   when the bell rang out the summons from the town belfry. In
   Flanders the Communes grew out of popular institutions of
   ancient date, and, though, no doubt, their influence was
   sensibly increased by their confirmation at the hands of King
   or Count, they did not owe their origin to royal or
   seigniorial charters."

      J. Hutton,
      James and Philip Van Arteveld,
      part 1, chapter 1.


      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.

GUILFORD COURT HOUSE, Battle of (1781).

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

GUILLOTINE, The origin of the.

   "It was during these winter months [of the session of the
   French National Assembly, 1790] that Dr. Guillotin read his
   long discourse upon the reformation of the penal code; of
   which the 'Moniteur' has not preserved a single word. This
   discourse attracts our attention on two accounts:—First, it
   proposed a decree that there should be but one kind of
   punishment for capital crimes; secondly, that the arm of the
   executioner should be replaced by the action of a machine,
   which Dr. Guillotin had invented. 'With the aid of my
   machine,' said the glib doctor, 'I will make your head spring
   off in the twinkling of an eye, and you will suffer nothing.'
   Bursts of laughter met this declaration; nevertheless, the
   Assembly listened with attention, and adopted the proposal."

      G. H. Lewes,
      Life of Robespierre,
      chapter 10.

      ALSO IN:
      G. Everitt,
      Guillotine the Great and her Successors.

      J. W. Croker,
      History of the Guillotine.

   ----------GUINEGATE: Start--------

GUINEGATE, Battle of (1478).

   A bloody but indecisive battle, fought between the French, on
   one side, and Flemish and Burgundian troops on the other, in
   the war produced by the attempt of Louis XI. to rob Mary of
   Burgundy of her heritage. It was followed by a long truce, and
   a final treaty.

      E. Smedley,
      History of France,
      part 1, chapter 17.

GUINEGATE: Battle of (1513).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.

   ----------GUINEGATE: End----------

GUINES, Treaty of (1547).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

GUISCARD, Robert, and Roger and the Norman conquest of Southern
Italy and Sicily.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1000-1090; and 1081-1194.

GUISE, Duke of, Assassination.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.


      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.


      See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.

GUJERAT, Battle of (1849).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

GUNDEBERTUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 662-672.



      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1605.




      See SIKHS.

GUSTAVUS (I.) Vasa, King of Sweden, A. D. 1523-1560.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527, and 1523-1604.

   Gustavus (II.) Adolphus, King of Sweden, 1611-1632.

   Campaigns and death in Germany.

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

   Gustavus III., King of Sweden, 1771-1792.

   Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, 1792-1809.

GUTBORM, King of Norway, A. D. 1204-1205.

GUTENBERG, and the invention of Printing.

      See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

GUTSTADT, Battle of.

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

GUTHRIE, The founding of the city of.

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






   November 5, the anniversary of the day on which the
   conspirators of the "Gunpowder Plot" intended to blow up King
   and Parliament, in England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1605.




   A Welsh title, signifying ruler, or prince, which was taken by
   the native leader in Britain after the Romans left. He was the
   successor of the Roman Duke of Britain.

      J. Rhys,
      Celtic Britain,
      chapter 3.

      See, also, ARTHUR, KING.



GYLIPPUS, and the defense of Syracuse.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.




   "Amongst public buildings [of the ancient Greeks] we mentioned
   first the gymnasia, which, originating in the requirements of
   single persons, soon became centre-points of Greek life.
   Corporeal exercise was of great importance amongst the Greeks,
   and the games and competitions in the various kinds of bodily
   skill … formed a chief feature of their religious feasts.
   This circumstance reacted on both sculpture and architecture,
   in supplying the former with models of ideal beauty, and in
   setting the task to the latter of providing suitable places
   for these games to be celebrated. For purposes of this kind
   (as far as public exhibition was not concerned) the palæstrai
   and gymnasia served. In earlier times these two must be
   distinguished. In the palæstra … young men practised
   wrestling and boxing. As these arts were gradually developed,
   larger establishments with separate compartments became
   necessary. Originally such places were, like the schools of
   the grammarians, kept by private persons; sometimes they
   consisted only of open spaces, if possible near a brook and
   surrounded by trees. Soon, however, regular
   buildings—gymnasia—became necessary. At first they
   consisted of an uncovered, court surrounded by colonnades,
   adjoining which lay covered spaces, the former being used for
   running and jumping, the latter for wrestling. In the same
   degree as these exercises became more developed, and as
   grown-up men began to take an interest in these youthful
   sports, and spent a great part of their day at the gymnasia,
   these grew in size and splendour. They soon became a necessary
   of life, and no town could be without them, larger cities
   often containing several."

      E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 25.

   Of gymnasia "there were many at Athens; though three only,
   those of the Academy, Lyceum, and Cynosarges, have acquired
   celebrity: The site of the first of these gymnasia being low
   and marshy was in ancient times infested with malaria, but
   having been drained by Cimon and planted with trees it became
   a favourite promenade and place of exercise. Here, in walks
   shaded by the sacred olive, might be seen young men with
   crowns of rushes in flower upon their heads, enjoying the
   sweet odour of the smilax and the white poplar, while the
   platanos and the elm mingled their murmurs in the breeze of
   spring. The meadows of the Academy, according to Aristophanes
   the grammarian, were planted with the Apragmosune, a sort of
   flower so called as though it smelt of all kind of fragrance
   and safety, like our heart's-ease or flower of the Trinity.
   This place is supposed to have derived its name from Ecadamos,
   a public-spirited man who bequeathed his property for the
   purpose of keeping it in order. … The name of the Lyceum,
   sometimes derived from Lycus, son of Pandion, probably owed
   its origin to the temenos of Lycian Apollo there situated. It
   lay near the banks of the Ilissos, and was adorned with
   stately edifices, fountains and groves. … In this place
   anciently the Polemarch held his court and the forces of the
   republic were exercised before they went forth to war.
   Appended to the name of the Cynosarges, or third gymnasium
   surrounded with groves, was a legend which related that when
   Diomos was sacrificing to Hestia, a white dog snatched away a
   part of the victim from the altar, and running straightway out
   of the city deposited it on the spot where this gymnasium was
   afterwards erected."

      J. A. St. John,
      The Hellenes,
      book 2, chapter 5.

   "The name of that most illustrious of the Athenian gymnasia,
   the Academy, has been preserved through the dark ages, and
   exactly in the situation indicated by ancient testimony. We
   are informed that the Academy was six or eight stades distant
   from a gate in the wall of the asty named Dipylum, and that
   the road from thence to the Academy led through that part of
   the outer Cerameicus, in which it was a custom to bury the
   Athenian citizens who had fallen in battle on important
   occasions. Dipylum was the gate from whence began the Sacred
   Way from Athens to Eleusis. … It appears also that the
   Academy lay between the Sacred Way and the Colonus Hippius, a
   height near the Cephissus, sacred to Neptune, and the scene of
   the Œdipus Coloneus of Sophocles; for the Academy was not far
   from Colonus, and the latter was ten stades distant from the
   city. That part of the plain which is near the olive-groves,
   on the northeastern side of Athens, and is now called
   Akadhimia, is entirely in conformity with these data. It is on
   the lowest level, where some water-courses from the ridges of
   Lycabettus are consumed in gardens and olive plantations."

      W. M. Leake,
      Topography of Athens,
      section 2.

      See, also,



      See LITURGIES.


   "Having in various and distant countries lived in habits of
   intimacy with these people, I have come to the following
   conclusions respecting them: that wherever they are found,
   their manners and customs are virtually the same, though
   somewhat modified by circumstances, and that the language they
   speak amongst themselves, and of which they are particularly
   anxious to keep others in ignorance, is in all countries one
   and the same, but has been subjected more or less to
   modification; and lastly, that their countenances exhibit a
   decided family resemblance, but are darker or fairer according
   to the temperature of the climate, but invariably darker, at
   least in Europe, than the natives of the countries in which
   they dwell, for example, England and Russia, Germany and
   Spain. The names by which they are known differ with the
   country, though, with one or two exceptions, not materially;
   for example, they are styled in Russia, Zigani; in Turkey and
   Persia, Zingarri; and in Germany, Zigeuner; all which words
   apparently spring from the same etymon, which there is no
   improbability in supposing to be 'Zincali,' a term by which
   these people, especially those of Spain, sometimes designate
   themselves, and the meaning of which is believed to be, 'The
   black men of Zend or Ind.' In England and Spain they are
   commonly known as Gypsies and Gitanos, from a general belief
   that they were originally Egyptians, to which the two words
   are tantamount; and in France as Bohemians, from the
   circumstance that Bohemia was the first country in civilized
   Europe where they made their appearance; though there is
   reason for supposing that they had been wandering in the
   remote regions of Sclavonia for a considerable time previous,
   as their language abounds with words of Sclavonic origin,
   which could not have been adopted in a hasty passage through a
   wild and half populated country. But they generally style
   themselves and the language which they speak, Rommany. This
   word … is of Sanscrit origin, and signifies, 'The Husbands,'
   or that which pertaineth unto them. From whatever motive this
   appellation may have originated, it is perhaps more applicable
   than any other to a sect or caste like them, who have no love
   and no affection beyond their own race; who are capable of
   making great sacrifices for each other, and who gladly prey
   upon all the rest of the human species, whom they detest, and
   by whom they are hated and despised. It will perhaps not be
   out of place to observe here, that there is no reason for
   supposing that the word Roma or Rommany is derived from the
   Arabic word which signifies Greece or Grecians, as some people
   not much acquainted with the language of the race in question
   have imagined. … Scholars have asserted that the language
   which they speak proves them to be of Indian stock, and
   undoubtedly a great number of their words are Sanscrit. …
   There is scarcely a part of the habitable world where they are
   not to be found; their tents are alike pitched on the heaths
   of Brazil and the ridges of the Himalayan hills, and their
   language is heard at Moscow and Madrid, in the streets of
   London and Stamboul."

      G. Borrow,
      The Zincali,
      volume 1, pages 2-5.

   "One day, 450 years ago, or thereabouts, there knocked at the
   gates of the city of Lüneburg, on the Elbe, as strange a
   rabble rout as had ever been seen by German burgher. There
   were 300 of them, men and women, accompanied by an
   extraordinary number of children. They were dusky of skin,
   with jet-black hair and eyes; they wore strange garments; they
   were unwashed and dirty even beyond the liberal limits
   tolerated by the cold-water-fearing citizens of Lüneburg; they
   had with them horses, donkeys, and carts; they were led by two
   men whom they described as Duke and Count. … All the
   Lüneburgers turned out to gaze open-mouthed at these pilgrims,
   while the Duke and the Count told the authorities their tale,
   which was wild and romantic. … Many years before, they
   explained, while the tears of penitence stood in the eyes of
   all but the youngest children, they had been a Christian
   community, living in orthodoxy, and therefore happiness, in a
   far-off country known as Egypt. … They were then a happy
   Christian flock. To their valley came the Saracens, an
   execrable race, worshipping Mahound. Yielding, in an evil
   hour, to the threats and persecutions of their conquerors,
   they—here they turned their faces and wept aloud—they
   abjured Christ. But thereafter they had no rest or peace, and
   a remorse so deep fell upon their souls that they were fain to
   arise, leave their homes, and journey to Rome in hope of
   getting reconciliation with the Church, They were graciously
   received by the Pope, who promised to admit them back into the
   fold after seven years of penitential wandering. They had
   letters of credit from King Sigismund—would the Lüneburgers
   kindly look at them?—granting safe conduct and recommending
   them to the protection of all honest people. The Lüneburg folk
   were touched at the recital of so much suffering in a cause so
   good; they granted the request of the strangers. They allowed
   them to encamp, … The next day the strangers visited the
   town. In the evening a good many things were missed,
   especially those unconsidered trifles which a housewife may
   leave about her doorway. Poultry became suddenly scarce; eggs
   doubled in price; it was rumoured that purses had been lost
   while their owners gazed at the strangers; cherished cups of
   silver were not to be found. … While the Lüneburgers took
   counsel, in their leisurely way, how to meet a case so
   uncommon, the pilgrims suddenly decamped, leaving nothing
   behind them but the ashes of their fires and the picked bones
   of the purloined poultry. … This was the first historical
   appearance of Gipsies. It was a curious place to appear in.
   The mouth of the Elbe is a long way from Egypt, even if you
   travel by sea, which does not appear to have been the case;
   and a journey on laud not only would have been infinitely more
   fatiguing, but would, one would think, have led to some notice
   on the road before reaching Lüneburg. There, however, the
   Gipsies certainly are first heard of, and henceforth history
   has plenty to say about their doings. From Lüneburg they went
   to Hamburg, Lübeck, Rostock, Griefswald, travelling in an
   easterly direction. They are mentioned as having appeared in
   Saxony, where they were driven away, as at Lüneburg, for their
   thievish propensities. They travelled through Switzerland,
   headed by their great Duke Michael, and pretending to have
   been expelled from Egypt by the Turks, Their story in these
   early years, though it varied in particulars, remained the
   same in essentials.
   In Provence they called themselves Saracens; in Swabia they
   were Egyptians doomed to everlasting wanderings for having
   refused hospitality to the Virgin and Joseph; at Bâle, where
   they exhibited letters of safe conduct from the Pope, they
   were also Egyptians. Always the Land of the Nile; always the
   same pretence, or it may be reminiscence, of sojourn in Egypt;
   always, to soothe the suspicions of priests, faithful and
   submissive sons of the Church. From the very first their real
   character was apparent. They lie, cheat, and steal at
   Lüneburg; they lie and steal everywhere; they tell fortunes
   and cut purses, they buy and sell horses, they poison pigs,
   they rob and plunder, they wander and they will not work. They
   first came to Paris in the year 1427, when more people went to
   see them, we are told, than ever crowded to the Fair of
   Laudet. … They remained at St. Denis for a month, when they
   received peremptory orders to quit for the usual reason. …
   In the 16th century trouble began for the Roman folk. By this
   time their character was perfectly well known. They were
   called Bohemians, Heathen, Gitanos, Pharaohites, Robbers,
   Tartars, and Zigeuner. They had abandoned the old lying story
   of the penitential wanderings; they were outcasts; their hand
   was against every man's hand; their customs were the same then
   as they are described now by Leland or Borrow."

      Gipsies and their Friends
      (Temple Bar, volume 47), pages 65-67.

   "Since the publication of Pott's book upon the gypsies [Die
   Zigeuner in Europa und Asien]—about 30 years ago—we have
   come to regard the origin of this singular people with
   considerable unanimity of opinion. Almost nobody doubts now
   that they are Indians; and the assumption that all the gypsies
   scattered throughout Europe are descended from one parent
   stock meets with little contradiction. Both of these beliefs
   are the outcome of the investigation of their language. …
   Pott, in the introduction to his book, and quoting from the
   'Shah-Name' of Firdousi, informs us that, during the 5th
   century of our era, the Persian monarch, Behram Gour, received
   from an Indian king 12,000 musicians of both sexes, who were
   known as Luris. Now, as this is the name by which the gypsies
   of Persia are known even at the present day, and as, moreover,
   the author of the Persian work 'Modjmal at-tawarikh'
   emphatically says that the Luris or Lulis of modern Persia are
   the descendants of these same 12,000 musicians, there is no
   hazard in the assumption that we have here the first recorded
   gypsy migration. Confirmation of this is afforded by the
   Arabian historian, Hamza of Ispahan, who wrote half a century
   before Firdousi, and who was well versed in the history of the
   Sassasinides. It is related by this author that Behram Gour
   caused 12,000 musicians, called Zott, to be sent from India
   for the benefit of his subjects. And 'Zott' is the name by
   which the gypsies were known to the Arabs, and which they even
   bear in Damascus at the present day. In the Arabic dictionary
   'al-Kamus' this entry occurs: 'Zott, arabicized from Jatt, a
   people of Indian origin. The word might be pronounced Zatt
   with equal correctness.' … For the fatherland of these Zott,
   or Jatt, we have not long to seek. Istakhri and Ibn-Haukal,
   the celebrated 10th-century geographers, recount as follows:—
   'Between al-Mansura and Mokran the waters of the Indus have
   formed marshes, the borders of which are inhabited by certain
   Indian tribes, called Zott; those of them who dwell near the
   river live in huts, like the huts of the Berbers, and subsist
   chiefly on fish and water-fowl; while those occupying the
   level country further inland live like the Kurds, supporting
   themselves on milk, cheese, and maize.' In these same regions
   there are yet two more tribes placed by these geographers,
   namely, the Bodha and the Meid. The former are properly,
   according to Ibn-Haukal, a subdivision of the Zott. … In
   course of time the Meds (to adopt the spelling favoured by Sir
   Henry Elliott) overcame the Zotts, whom they treated with such
   severity that they had to leave the country. The Zotts then
   established themselves on the river Pehen, where they soon
   became skilful sailors"; while those living farther to the
   north, known as Kikan, became famed as breeders of horses and
   herders of buffalos. When the Arabs, in their career of
   conquest, came in contact with the Zotts, the latter joined
   them, and large colonies of them were removed, for some
   reason, to western Asia, and settled with their herds on the
   lower Euphrates and Tigris, and in Syria. The Zotts on the
   Tigris became strong and troublesome in time, and in 834 the
   khalif Motacem, after subjugating them by force, removed them
   from the country, to the number of 27,000, sending them to
   Ainzarba, on the northern frontier of Syria. In 855, Ainzarba
   was captured by the Byzantines, who carried off the Zotts,
   with all their buffalo herds. "Here, then, we have the first
   band of gypsies brought into the Greek Empire. … As regards
   the destinies of the Zotts after they had been brought to Asia
   Minor from Ainzarba, in the year 855, I have been unable—in
   the course of a hurried search—to discover anything. But, now
   that we know the year in which they entered Byzantine
   territory, others may be more successful. Whether the name
   Zott, or rather its Indian form Jatt (or Jaut), has also been
   brought with them into Europe, I am, of course, as little able
   to say."

      M. J. de Goeje,
      A Contribution to the History of the Gypsies
      (In "Accounts of the Gypsies of India,"
      edited by D. MacRitchie).

   "Students of the gipsies, and especially those who have
   interested themselves in the history of the race, will have
   read with regret the announcement of the death, at Paris, on
   March 1st, of the veteran 'tsiganologue,' M. Paul Bataillard.
   For the last half century he had devoted his leisure time to
   the study of the early notices of the presence of gipsies in
   Europe. … It was his opinion that there have been gipsies in
   Eastern Europe since prehistoric times, and that it is to them
   Europe owes its knowledge of metallurgy. Heterodox although
   this opinion may be, it has recently been observed by Mr. F.
   H. Groome that 'Bataillard's theory is gaining favour with
   foreign archæologists, among whom MM. Mortillet, Chantre, and
   Burnouf had arrived independently at similar conclusions.'"

      The Athenæum,
      March 31, 1894.

      ALSO IN:
      C. G. Leland,
      English Gipsies,
      chapters 8-10.

      W. Simson.
      History of the Gipsies.


   "Fen-folk"—the name taken by a body of Engle freebooters who
   occupied the islands in the Fen district of England for a long
   time before they were able to possess the Roman-British towns
   and country on its border.

      J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      chapter 2.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.



HAARLEM: A. D. 1572-1573.
   Siege and capture by Alva's Spaniards.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.

HABEAS CORPUS, Act and Writ of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1679 (MAY).

HABSBURG, or HAPSBURG, Origin of the House of.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.





HADI, Al, Caliph, A. D. 786-809.

   Roman Emperor, A. D. 117-138.
   Hadrian I., Pope, 772-795.
   Hadrian II., Pope, 867-872.
   Hadrian III., Pope, 884-885.
   Hadrian IV., Pope, 1154-1159.
   Hadrian V., Pope, 1276, July to August.










      See ÆDUI.

HÆMUS, Mount.

   The ancient name of the Balkan chain of mountains.


      See HUNDRED, THE.

HAGENAU, Treaty of (1330).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.

   Origin and Name.

   "Unlike other Dutch cities, the Hague owed its importance, not
   to commerce or manufactures, but to having early been made the
   seat of government of the United Provinces, and to the
   constant presence of the officers of state and the foreign
   ministers accredited to the republic. For four centuries the
   abode of the counts of Holland, it derives its name from the
   'Haeg 'or hedge encircling the magnificent park which formed
   their ancient hunting ground, and the majestic trees in which,
   at this day, attract the admiration of Europe."

      J. R. Brodhead,
      History of the State of New York,
      volume 1, page 61.

HAGUENAU: Cession to France.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.




      See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748; and 1877.


   Hainault, the region of the Netherlands occupied anciently by
   the Nervii, became a county under hereditary lords in the 9th
   century. In the 11th century it was joined by marriage to the
   territories of the counts of Flanders, and so remained, until
   the beginning of the 14th century. In 1300 Hainault and
   Holland became joined under the same family of counts.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 922-1345.


      See HAYTI.

HAKO, OR HAKON I. (called the Good),
   King of Norway, A. D. 940-963.
   Hako II. (Jarl), King of Norway, 977-995.
   Hako III., King of Norway, 1202-1204.
   Hako IV., King of Norway, 1207-1263.
   Hako V., King of Norway, 1299-1319.
   Hako VI., King of Norway, 1343-1380.


      See STALWARTS.


      See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

HALIARTUS, Battle of (B. C. 395).

      See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.


      See CARIANS;
      and ASIA MINOR;
      also, MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.

HALIDON HILL, Battle of (1333).

      See BERWICK-UPON-TWEED: A. D. 1293-1333;
      and SCOTLAND: A. D. 1332-1333.

HALIFAX: A. D. 1749.
   The founding of the city.

   "In the year [1749] after the peace [of Aix-la-Chapelle] the
   land forces in Great Britain were reduced to little more than
   18,000 men; those in Minorca, Gibraltar, and the American
   plantations, to 10,000; while the sailors retained in the
   Royal Navy were under 17,000. From the large number both of
   soldiers and seamen suddenly discharged, it was feared that
   they might be either driven to distress or tempted to
   depredation. Thus, both for their own comfort and for the
   quiet of the remaining community, emigration seemed to afford
   a safe and excellent resource. The province of Nova Scotia was
   pitched upon for this experiment, and the freehold of fifty
   acres was offered to each settler, with ten acres more for
   every child brought with him, besides a free passage, and an
   exemption from all taxes during a term of ten years. Allured
   by such advantages, above 4,000 persons, with their families,
   embarked under the command of Colonel Cornwallis, and landed
   at the harbour of Chebuetow. The new town which soon arose
   from their labours received its name from the Earl of Halifax,
   who presided at the Board of Trade, and who had the principal
   share in the foundation of this colony. In the first winter
   there were but 300 huts of wood, surrounded by a palisade."

      Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 31 (volume 4).

      See, also,
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755.


    "For many years Canada used what was called 'Halifax
    currency,' in which the nomenclature of sterling money was
    that employed, but having a pound of this currency valued at
    four dollars."

      G. Bryce,
      Short History of the Canadian People,
      page 433.


      See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1877-1888.

HALLECK, General Henry W. Command in Missouri.

      A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

   Command in the Valley of the Mississippi.


   Command of all the armies.



   The capital city of ancient Media.

HAMATH, Kingdom of.

   "It is impossible to doubt that the Hamathites are identical
   with the Canaanitish tribe that was settled in the town of
   Hamath, afterwards called Epiphania, on the Orontes, between
   the Hittites and the Amorites of Kadesh. After the time of
   David they were succeeded in that town by the Arimæans."

      F. Lenormant,
      Manual of Ancient History of the East,
      book 6, chapter 1 (volume 2).


   ----------HAMBURG: Start----------

   The origin of the city, its freedom and commercial rise.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

HAMBURG: A. D. 1801-1803.
   One of six Free Cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

HAMBURG: A. D. 1806.
   Occupied and oppressed by the French.


HAMBURG: A. D. 1810.
   Annexation to France.


HAMBURG: A. D. 1810-1815.
   Loss and recovery of the autonomy of a Free City.


HAMBURG: A. D. 1813.
   Expulsion of the French.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.

HAMBURG: A. D. 1813.
   Defense by Marshal Davoust.


HAMBURG: A. D. 1815.
   Once more a Free City and a member of the Germanic


HAMBURG: A. D. 1888.
   Surrender of free privileges.
   Absorption in the Zollverein and Empire.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1888.

   ----------HAMBURG: End----------

HAMILCAR BARCA, and the First Punic War.


HAMILTON, Alexander,
   The framing and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

      A. D. 1787, and 1787-1789.

HAMILTON, Alexander:
   Financial organization of the United States Government.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792;
      A. D. 1789-1791.

HAMILTON, Alexander:
   The Federal Party.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792,
      and 1797-1799.

HAMILTON, Alexander:
   Fatal duel with Aaron Burr.

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


   The name Hamites, as now used among ethnologists, is
   restricted more closely than it once was to certain African
   races, whose languages are found to be related. The languages
   classed as Hamitic are those of the ancient Egyptians and the
   modern Copts, most of the Abyssinian tribes, the Gallas and
   the Berbers. Some of the older writers, Lenormant, for
   example, embraced the Phœnicians and all their Canaanite
   neighbors among the Hamites; but this is not now an accepted
   view. It was undoubtedly formed under the influence of the
   theory from which the name Hamites came, namely that the
   people so designated were descendants of Ham; and it sought to
   adjust a division of the Hamitic family to four lines of
   descent, indicated by the Biblical account of the four sons of
   Ham,—Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan. This hypothesis
   identified the Cushites with the Ethiopians (modern
   Abyssinians and Nubians), the descendants of Mizraim with the
   Egyptians, those of Phut with the Libyans, and those of Canaan
   with the Canaanites, including the Phœnicians. Some held that
   the Hamites occupied originally a great part of western and
   southern Asia; that they were the primitive inhabitants of
   southern Mesopotamia, or Chaldea, southern Persia, and
   southern Arabia, and were displaced by the Semites; also that
   they once inhabited the most of Asia Minor, and that the
   Carians were a surviving remnant of them. But the more
   conservative sense in which the term Hamite is now used
   restricts it, as stated above, to certain races which are
   grouped together by a relationship in their languages. Whether
   or not the Hamitic tongues have an affinity to the Semitic
   seems still an open question; and, in fact, the whole subject
   is in an undetermined state, as may be inferred from the
   following extract: "The so-called Hamitic or sub-Semitic
   languages of Northern Africa … exhibit resemblances to the
   language of ancient Egypt as well as to those of the Semitic
   family. In the Libyan dialects we find the same double verbal
   form employed with the same double function as in Assyrian,
   and throughout the 'Hamitic' languages the causative is
   denoted by a prefixed sibilant as it was in the parent Semitic
   speech. We cannot argue, however, from language to race, …
   and the Libyans have ethnologically no connection with the
   Semites or the Egyptians. Moreover, in several instances the
   Hamitic' dialects are spoken by tribes of negro or Nubian
   origin, while the physiological characteristics of the
   Egyptians are very different from those of the Semite."

      A. H. Sayce,
      The Races of the Old Testament,
      chapter 4.


   See ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637; 1640-1641;
   and 1643 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).


      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.


      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1604.



HANAU, Battle of.


HANCOCK, John, and the American Revolution.

      A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST); and 1776 (JULY).


      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1559-1562.


   An ancient Egyptian city, once mentioned in the Bible by that
   name (Isaiah xxx. 4). Its ruins have been identified, about 70
   miles above Cairo, on the western bank of the Nile. The
   Egyptian name of the city was Chenensu; the Greek name

      R. S. Poole,
      Cities of Egypt,
      chapter 3.

HANNIBAL, The war of, with Rome.


   ----------HANOVER: Start--------

   Origin of the Kingdom and House.

      and A. D. 1178-1183.

   The Guelf connection.

      and ESTE, HOUSE OF.

HANOVER: A. D. 1529.
   The Duke joins in the Protest which gave origin to the name

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

HANOVER: A. D. 1546.
   Final separation from the Wolfenbüttel branch of the House.

   The two principalities of Brunswick and Lüneburg, which had
   been divided, were reunited by Ernest, called the Confessor.
   On his death, in 1546, they were again divided, the heir of
   his elder son taking Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, or Brunswick, and
   the younger receiving Brunswick-Lüneburg, or Hanover. From the
   latter branch sprang the Electoral House of Hanover, and the
   present royal family of England; from the former descended the
   Ducal Brunswick family.

      Sir A. Halliday,
      Annals of the House of Hanover,
      book 9 (volume 2).


HANOVER: A. D. 1648.
   Losses and acquisitions in the Peace of Westphalia.
   The alternating Bishopric.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

HANOVER: A. D. 1692.
   Rise to Electoral rank.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1705; and 1125-1152.

HANOVER: A. D. 1694-1696.
   The war of the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV.

      See FRANCE: A.D. 1694; and 1695-1696.

HANOVER: A. D. 1701.
   Settlement of the Succession of the Brunswick-Lüneberg line to
   the English Crown.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1701.

HANOVER: A. D. 1714.
   Succession of the Elector to the British Crown.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1714.

HANOVER: A. D. 1720.
   Acquisition of the duchies of Bremen and Verden by the

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.

HANOVER: A. D. 1741.
   The War of the Austrian Succession: Neutrality declared.

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

HANOVER: A. D. 1745.
   The English-Hanoverian defeat at Fontenoy.


HANOVER: A. D. 1757-1762.
   French attack and British defense of the electorate in the
   Seven Years War.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER), to 1761-1762.

HANOVER: A. D. 1763.
   The Peace of Paris, ending the Seven Years War.


HANOVER: A. D. 1776.
   Troops hired to Great Britain for service in the American War.

     A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE).

HANOVER: A. D. 1801-1803.
   Annexation of Osnabruck.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

HANOVER: A. D. 1803-1806.
   Seizure by the French.
   Cession to Prussia.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1802-1803;
      and GERMANY: 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

HANOVER: A. D. 1807.
   Absorbed in the kingdom of Westphalia.

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

HANOVER: A. D. 1810.
   Northern part annexed to France.


HANOVER: A. D. 1813.
   Deliverance from Napoleon.
   Restoration to the King of England.


HANOVER: A. D. 1815.
   Raised to the rank of a kingdom, with territorial enlargement.


HANOVER: A. D. 1837,
   Separation of the Crown from that of Great Britain.

   "From the hour that the Crown of these kingdoms [Great Britain
   and Ireland] devolved upon Queen Victoria, dates a change
   which was a real blessing in the relations of the Sovereign to
   the Continent of Europe. Hanover was at that instant wholly
   separated from Great Britain. By the law of that country a
   female could not reign except in default of heirs male in the
   Royal family. But in addition to the great advantage of
   separating the policy of England wholly from the intrigues and
   complications of a petty German State, it was an immediate
   happiness that the most hated and in some respects the most
   dangerous man in these islands was removed to a sphere where
   his political system might be worked out with less danger to
   the good of society than amongst a people where his influence
   was associated with the grossest follies of Toryism and the
   darkest designs of Orangeism. On the 24th of June the duke of
   Cumberland, now become Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover, left
   London. On the 28th he made a solemn entrance into the capital
   of his states, and at once exhibited to his new subjects his
   character and disposition by refusing to receive a deputation
   of the Chambers, who came to offer him their homage and their
   congratulations. By a proclamation of the 5th of July he
   announced his intention to abolish the representative
   constitution, which he had previously refused to recognize by
   the customary oath. We shall have little further occasion to
   notice the course of this worst disciple of the old school of
   intolerance and irresponsible government, and we may therefore
   at once state that he succeeded in depriving Hanover of the
   forms of freedom under which she had begun to live; ejected
   from their offices and banished some of the ablest professors
   of the University of Gottingen, who had ventured to think that
   letters would flourish best in a free soil; and reached the
   height of his ambition in becoming the representative of
   whatever in sovereign power was most repugnant to the spirit
   of the age."

      C. Knight,
      Popular History of England,
      volume 8, chapter 23.

HANOVER: A. D. 1866.
   Extinction of the kingdom.
   Absorption by Prussia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

   ----------HANOVER: End--------

HANOVER, The Alliance of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

HANOVER JUNCTION, Engagement at.

     A. D. 18112 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).


   "In consequence of the liberty and security enjoyed by the
   inhabitants of the free towns [of Germany—see CITIES:
   IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY], while the rest of the country
   was a prey to all the evils of feudal anarchy and oppression,
   they made a comparatively rapid progress in wealth and
   population. Nuremberg, Augsburg, Worms, Spires, Frankfort, and
   other cities, became at an early period celebrated alike for
   the extent of their commerce, the magnificence of their
   buildings, and the opulence of their citizens. … The
   commercial spirit awakened in the north about the same time as
   in the south of Germany. Hamburgh was founded by Charlemagne
   in the beginning of the ninth century, in the intention of
   serving as a fort to bridle the Saxons, who had been
   subjugated by the emperor. Its favourable situation on the
   Elbe necessarily rendered it a commercial emporium. Towards
   the close of the twelfth century, the inhabitants, who had
   already been extensively engaged in naval enterprizes, began
   to form the design of emancipating themselves from the
   authority of their counts, and of becoming a sovereign and
   independent state; and in 1189 they obtained an Imperial
   charter which gave them various privileges, including among
   others the power of electing councillors, or aldermen, to
   whom, in conjunction with the deputy of the count, the
   government of the town was to be entrusted. Not long after
   Hamburgh became entirely free. In 1224 the citizens purchased
   from Count Albert the renunciation of all his rights, whether
   real or pretended, to any property in or sovereignty over the
   town, and its immediate vicinity. And the government was thus
   early placed on that liberal footing on which it has ever
   since remained. Lubeck, situated on the Trave, was founded
   about the middle of the twelfth century. It rapidly grew to be
   a place of great trade.
   It became the principal emporium for the commerce of the
   Baltic, and its merchants extended their dealings to Italy and
   the Levant. At a period when navigation was still imperfect,
   and when the seas were infested with pirates, it was of great
   importance to be able to maintain a safe intercourse by land
   between Lubeck and Hamburgh, as by that means the difficult
   and dangerous navigation of the Sound was avoided. And it is
   said by some, that the first political union between these
   cities had the protection of merchandize carried between them
   by land for its sole object. But this is contradicted by
   Lambec in his 'Origines Hamburgenses' (lib. xi., pa. 26). …
   But whatever may have been the motives which led to the
   alliance between these two cities, it was the origin of the
   famous Hanseatic League, so called from the German word
   'hansa,' signifying a corporation. There is no very distinct
   evidence as to the time when the alliance in question was
   established; but the more general opinion seems to be that it
   dates from the year 1241. … From the beginning of the
   twelfth century, the progress of commerce and navigation in
   the north was exceedingly rapid. The countries which stretch
   along the bottom of the Baltic from Holstein to Russia, and
   which had been occupied by barbarous tribes of Sclavonic
   origin, were then subjugated by the Kings of Denmark, the
   Dukes of Saxony, and other princes. The greater part of the
   inhabitants being exterminated, their place was filled by
   German colonists, who founded the towns of Stralsund, Rostock,
   Wismar, etc. Prussia and Poland were afterwards subjugated by
   the Christian princes, and the Knights of the Teutonic order.
   So that in a comparatively short period, the foundations of
   civilization and the arts were laid in countries whose
   barbarism had ever remained impervious to the Roman power. The
   cities that were established along the coasts of the Baltic,
   and even in the interior of the countries bordering upon it,
   eagerly joined the Hanseatic confederation. They were indebted
   to the merchants of Lubeck for supplies of the commodities
   produced in more civilized countries, and they looked up to
   them for protection against the barbarians by whom they were
   surrounded. The progress of the league was in consequence
   singularly rapid. Previously to the end of the thirteenth
   century it embraced every considerable city in all those vast
   countries extending from Livonia to Holland; and was a match
   for the most powerful monarchs. The Hanseatic confederacy was
   at its highest degree of power and splendour during the
   fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It then comprised from
   sixty to eighty cities, which were distributed into four
   classes or circles. Lubeck was at the head of the first
   circle, and had under it Hamburgh, Bremen, Rostock, Wismar,
   etc. Cologne was at the head of the second circle, with
   twenty-nine towns under it. Brunswick was at the head of the
   third circle, consisting of thirteen towns. Dantzic was at the
   head of the fourth circle, having under it eight towns in its
   vicinity, besides several that were more remote. The supreme
   authority of the League was vested in the deputies of the
   different towns assembled in Congress. In it they discussed
   all their measures; decided upon the sum that each city should
   contribute to the common fund; and upon the questions that
   arose between the confederacy and other powers, as well as
   those that frequently arose between the different members of
   the confederacy. The place for the meeting of Congress was not
   fixed, but it was most frequently held at Lubeck, which was
   considered as the capital of the League, and there its
   archives were kept. … Besides the towns already mentioned,
   there were others that were denominated confederated cities,
   or allies. … The Golden Bull proscribed all sorts of leagues
   and associations, as contrary to the fundamental laws of the
   empire, and to the subordination due to the emperor and the
   different princes. But Charles IV., the author of this famous
   edict, judged it expedient to conciliate the Hanseatic League;
   and his successors seem generally to have followed his
   example. As the power of the confederated cities was increased
   and consolidated, they became more ambitious. Instead of
   limiting their efforts to the mere advancement of commerce and
   their own protection, they endeavoured to acquire the monopoly
   of the trade of the North, and to exercise the same sort of
   dominion over the Baltic that the Venetians exercised over the
   Adriatic. For this purpose they succeeded in obtaining, partly
   in return for loans of money, and partly by force, various
   privileges and immunities from the Northern sovereigns which
   secured to them almost the whole foreign commerce of
   Scandinavia, Denmark, Prussia, Poland, Russia, etc. They
   exclusively carried on the herring-fishery of the Sound, at
   the same time that they endeavoured to obstruct and hinder the
   navigation of foreign vessels in the Baltic. … The Kings of
   Denmark, Sweden and Norway were frequently engaged in
   hostilities with the Hanse towns. They regarded, and it must
   be admitted not without pretty good reason, the privileges
   acquired by the League in their kingdoms as so many
   usurpations. But their efforts to abolish these privileges
   served, for more than two centuries, only to augment and
   extend them. … Waldemar III., who ascended the Danish throne
   in 1340, engaged in a furious contest with the League. Success
   seemed at first rather to incline to his arms. Ultimately,
   however, he was completely defeated by the forces of the
   League and its allies, and was even obliged to fly from his
   kingdom. In his exile he prevailed on the Emperor and the Pope
   to interpose in his favour. But neither the imperial rescripts
   nor the thunders of the Vatican were able to divert the
   confederated cities from their purposes. At length, in 1370,
   the regents, to whom the government of Denmark had been
   intrusted during the absence of the monarch, concluded a peace
   with the League on the conditions dictated by the latter; one
   of which was that most of the strong places in the kingdom
   should be given up to the League for fifteen years, in
   security for the faithful performance of the treaty. Waldemar
   having assented to these humiliating terms, returned soon
   after to Denmark. In the early part of the fifteenth century
   the Hanse towns having espoused the side of the Count of
   Holstein, who was at war with Eric X., King of Denmark, sent
   an armament of upwards of 200 ships, having more than 12,000
   troops on board, to the assistance of their ally. This
   powerful aid decided the contest in his favour. Nearly at the
   same time the League raised their ally, Albert of
   Mecklenburgh, to the throne of Norway, who confirmed to them
   several important commercial privileges.
   In their contests with Sweden, during the fourteenth and
   fifteenth centuries, the League were equally successful. Such,
   indeed, was their ascendancy in that kingdom, that they were
   authorized to nominate some of the principal magistrates in
   most of the Swedish maritime towns of any importance! … The
   town of Wisby, situated on the west coast of the island of
   Gothland, became, during the ascendancy of the League, one of
   its principal depots, and also one of the best frequented
   emporiums of the North. But Wisby is chiefly famous from its
   name having become identified with the code of maritime laws
   that was long of paramount authority in the Baltic. … The
   principal Northern jurists and historians regard the Wisby
   code, or compilation, as anterior to the code, or compilation,
   denominated the Rules or Judgments of Oleron, and as being in
   fact the most ancient monument of the maritime laws of the
   middle ages. But no learning or ingenuity can give
   plausibility to so improbable a theory. … In order to
   facilitate and extend their commercial transactions, the
   League established various factories in foreign countries, the
   principal of which were at Novogorod in Russia, London in
   England, Bruges in the Netherlands, and Bergen in Norway.
   Novogorod, situated at the confluence of the Volkof with the
   Imler Lake, was, for a lengthened period, the most renowned
   emporium in the north-eastern parts of Europe. … The
   merchants of the Hanse towns, or Hansards, as they were then
   commonly termed, were established in London at a very early
   period, and their factory here was of considerable magnitude
   and importance. They enjoyed various privileges and
   immunities; they were permitted to govern themselves by their
   own laws and regulations; the custody of one of the gates of
   the city (Bishopsgate) was committed to their care; and the
   duties on various sorts of imported commodities were
   considerably reduced in their favour. These privileges
   necessarily excited the ill-will and animosity of the English
   merchants. … The League exerted themselves vigorously in
   defence of their privileges; and having declared war against
   England, they succeeded in excluding our vessels from the
   Baltic, and acted with such energy, that Edward IV. was glad
   to come to an accommodation with them, on terms which were
   anything but honourable to the English. In the treaty for this
   purpose, negotiated in 1474, the privileges of the merchants
   of the Hanse towns were renewed, and the king assigned to
   them, in absolute property, a large space of ground, with the
   buildings upon it, in Thames Street, denominated the Steel
   Yard, whence the Hanse merchants have been commonly
   denominated the Association of the Steel Yard. … In 1498,
   all direct commerce with the Netherlands being suspended, the
   trade fell into the hands of the Hanse merchants, whose
   commerce was in consequence very greatly extended. But,
   according as the spirit of commercial enterprise awakened in
   the nation, and as the benefits resulting from the prosecution
   of foreign trade came to be better known, the privileges of
   the Hanse merchants became more and more obnoxious. They were
   in consequence considerably modified in the reigns of Henry
   VII. and Henry VIII., and were at length wholly abolished in
   1597. The different individuals belonging to the factory in
   London, as well as those belonging to the other factories of
   the League, lived together at a common table, and were
   enjoined to observe the strictest celibacy. … By means of
   their factory at Bergen, and of the privileges which had been
   either granted to or usurped by them, the League enjoyed for a
   lengthened period the monopoly of the commerce of Norway. But
   the principal factory of the League was at Bruges in the
   Netherlands. Bruges became, at a very early period, one of the
   first commercial cities of Europe, and the centre of the most
   extensive trade carried on to the north of Italy. The art of
   navigation in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was so
   imperfect, that a voyage from Italy to the Baltic and back
   again could not be performed in a single season, and hence,
   for the sake of their mutual convenience, the Italian and
   Hanseatic merchants determined on establishing a magazine or
   store-house of their respective products in some intermediate
   situation. Bruges was fixed upon for this purpose, a
   distinction which it seems to have owed as much to the freedom
   enjoyed by the inhabitants, and the liberality of the
   government of the Low Countries, as to the conveniency of its
   situation. In consequence of this preference, Bruges speedily
   rose to the very highest rank among commercial cities, and
   became a place of vast wealth. … From the middle of the
   fifteenth century the power of the confederacy, though still
   very formidable, began to decline. This was not owing to any
   misconduct on the part of its leaders, but to the progress of
   that improvement it had done so much to promote. … Lubeck,
   Hamburgh, Bremen, and the towns in their vicinity, were
   latterly the only ones that had any interest in its
   maintenance. The cities in Zealand and Holland joined it,
   chiefly because they would otherwise have been excluded from
   the commerce of the Baltic; and those of Prussia, Poland and
   Russia did the same, because, had they not belonged to it,
   they would have been shut out from all intercourse with
   strangers. When, however, the Zealanders and Hollanders became
   sufficiently powerful at sea to be able to vindicate their
   right to the free navigation of the Baltic by force of arms,
   they immediately seceded from the League; and no sooner had
   the ships of the Dutch, the English, etc., begun to trade
   directly with the Polish and Prussian Hanse Towns, than these
   nations also embraced the first opportunity of withdrawing
   from it. … At the middle of the seventeenth century the
   cities of Lubeck, Hamburgh, and Bremen were all that continued
   to acknowledge the authority of the League."

      History of the Hanseatic League
      (Foreign Quarterly Review, January, 1831).

      ALSO IN:
      S. A. Dunham,
      History of the Germanic Empire,
      book 1, chapter 4 (volume 2).

      C. Walford,
      Outline History of the Hanseatic League
      (Royal Historical Society Transactions, volume 9).

      H. Zimmern,
      The Hansa Towns
      (Stories of the Nations).

      J. Yeats,
      The Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce.

      See, also,
      and SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.




      See HANSA TOWNS.


      See SOMA.

   Origin and rise of the House of.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.




   King of Norway, A. D. 1134-1136.

   Harald Blaatand, King of Denmark, 941-991.

   Harald Graafield, King of Norway, 963-977.

   Harald Hardrade, King of Norway, 1047-1066.

   Harald Harfager, King of Norway, 863-934.

   Harald Sweynson, King of Denmark, 1076-1080.


   "From Ur, Abraham's father had migrated to Haran, in the
   northern part of Mesopotamia, on the high road which led from
   Babylonia and Assyria into Syria and Palestine. Why he should
   have migrated to so distant a city has been a great puzzle,
   and has tempted scholars to place both Ur and Haran in wrong
   localities; but here, again, the cuneiform inscriptions have
   at last furnished us with the key. As far back as the Accadian
   epoch, the district in which Haran was built belonged to the
   rulers of Babylonia; Haran was, in fact, the frontier town of
   the empire, commanding at once the highway into the west and
   the fords of the Euphrates; the name itself was an Accadian
   one, signifying 'the road.'"

     A. H. Sayce,
     Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
     chapter 2.

   The site of Haran is generally identified with that of the
   later city of Carrhæ.


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


      See GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.

   King of Denmark, A. D. 1035-1042;
   King of England, A. D. 1040-1042.

HARDINGE, Lord, The Indian administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

   Capture by Henry V.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1415.




      See LYGIANS.

HARLAW, Battle of (1411).

   A very memorable battle in Scottish history, fought July 24,
   1411, between the Highlanders and Lowlanders of the country.
   Donald, Lord of the Isles, was then practically an independent
   sovereign of the western Highlands of Scotland, as well as the
   islands opposite their shore. He claimed still larger domains
   and invaded the lowland districts to make his claim good. The
   defeat inflicted upon him, at heavy cost to the victors, was
   felt, says Mr. Benton in his "History of Scotland," as a more
   memorable deliverance even than that of Bannockburn. The
   independence of the Lord of the Isle was not extinguished
   until sixty years later. "The battle of Harlaw and its
   consequences were of the highest importance, since they might
   be said to decide the superiority of the more civilized
   regions of Scotland over those inhabited by the Celtic tribes,
   who remained almost as savage as their forefathers the

      Sir W. Scott,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 17.


      See HAARLEM.


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


      See SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.

HAROLD (the Dane),
   King of England, A. D. 1037-1040.
   Harold (the Saxon), King of England, 1066.

HAROUN AL RASCHID, Caliph, A. D. 786-809.

   ----------HARPER'S FERRY: Start--------

   John Brown's invasion.


HARPER'S FERRY: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Arsenal destroyed and abandoned by the Federal garrison.
   Occupied by the Rebels.


   Capture by the Confederates.


   ----------HARPER'S FERRY: End--------

HARRISON, General Benjamin,
   Presidential election and administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1888, to 1892.

HARRISON, General William Henry:
   Indian campaign and battle of Tippecanoe.


   In the War of 1812.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

   Presidency for one month.


   The Army of the Potomac at.

      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA),



   ----------HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT: Start--------

   The beginnings of the city.

      See CONNECTICUT; A. D. 1631; and 1634-1637.

   The Treaty with the Dutch of New Netherland.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.

   The hiding of the Charter.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.

   ----------HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT: End--------






   "The haruspices, nearly related to the augures, were of
   Etruscan origin. Under the [Roman] Republic they were
   consulted only in a few individual cases: under the emperors
   they gained more importance, remaining, however, inferior to
   the other priestly colleges. They also expounded and procured
   lightnings and 'prodigies,' and moreover examined the
   intestines of sacrificed animals. … Heart, liver and lungs
   were carefully examined, every anomaly being explained in a
   favourable or unfavourable sense."

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


      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1804-1891.


      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1635, and 1636.

HASHEM, Caliph: A. D. 724-743.


      See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

HASSAN, Caliph: A. D. 661.


   A sect of Jewish mystics which rose during the 17th century in
   Podolia, Wallachia, Moldavia, Hungary and neighboring regions.

      H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      volume 3, book 28.


      See LEGION, ROMAN.

HASTENBACK, Battle of.

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


HASTING, The Northman.

      See Normans: A. D. 849-860.

HASTINGS, Marquis of (Lord Moira).
   The Indian administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

   His administration in India.
   His impeachment and Trial.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785; and 1785-1795.


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

   A vast swamp in the West Riding of Yorkshire, England, 180,000
   acres in extent, which was sold by the crown in the reign of
   Charles I. to a Hollander who drained and reclaimed it. It had
   been a forest in early times and was the scene of a great
   battle between Penda, King of Mercia, and Edwin of

      J. C. Brown,
      Forests of England,
      part 1, chapter. 2, section 2.


   "Hatra [in central Mesopotamia] became known as a place of
   importance in the early part of the second century after
   Christ. It successfully resisted Trajan in A. D. 116, and
   Severus in A. D. 198. It is then described as a large and
   populous city, defended by strong and extensive walls, and
   containing within it a temple of the Sun, celebrated for the
   great value of its offerings. It enjoyed its own kings at this
   time, who were regarded as of Arabian stock, and were among
   the more important of the Parthian tributary monarchs. By the
   year A. D. 363 Hatra had gone to ruin, and is then described
   as 'long since deserted.' Its flourishing period thus belongs
   to the space between A. D. 100 and A. D. 300." The ruins of
   Hatra, now called El-Hadhr, were "visited by Mr. Layard in
   1846, and described at length by Mr. Ross in the ninth volume
   of the 'Journal of the Royal Geographical Society,' as well as
   by Mr. Fergusson, in his 'History of Architecture.'"

      G. Rawlinson,
      Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 22.

HATS AND CAPS, Parties of the.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.


      A. D. 1861 (AUGUST: NORTH CAROLINA).

HATUNTAQUI, Battle of.



      See CUBA: A. D.1514-1851.


      See INDIA: A. D. 1857-1858.

HAVRE: A. D. 1563-1564.
   Occupation by the English.
   Siege and recovery by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1564.


   The Hawaiian or Sandwich Archipelago, in the North Pacific
   ocean, "consists of the seven large and inhabited volcanic
   islands of Oahu, Kauai, Niihau, Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and
   Hawaii, and the four bare and rocky islets of Kaula, Lehua,
   Kahoolawe, and Molokini, with a total area of 8,000 square
   miles, and a population of scarcely more than 50,000 souls.
   … The Kanakas, as the natives are called, are amongst the
   finest and most intelligent races of the Pacific, and have
   become thoroughly 'Europeanised,' or, perhaps rather,
   'Americanised.' … The Hawaiians, like all other Polynesians,
   are visibly decreasing in a constantly increasing ratio."

      Stanford's Compendium of Geography: Australasia,
      chapter 24.

   "Gaetano discovered one of the Sandwich [Hawaiian] Islands in
   1542; and, following him, Quiros found Tahiti and the New
   Hebrides. Sea voyages in the Pacific multiplied, but that sea
   long continued the exclusive theatre of the enterprises of the
   Spaniards and Portuguese. … Native traditions refer to the
   arrival of strangers a long time before Cook's appearance. In
   the seventeenth century Spanish merchantmen were crossing the
   Pacific, and might have refreshed at these islands. The
   buccaneers, too, may have found the small harbour a convenient
   place of concealment."

      M. Hopkins,
      Hawaii: The Past, Present and Future of the Island Kingdom,
      pages 83, 87.

   "It is about a century since His Majesty's ships 'Resolution'
   and 'Adventure,' Captains Cook and Clerke, turned back from
   Behring Strait after an unsuccessful attempt to discover the
   North-West Passage. But the adventurers were destined to light
   upon fairer lands than those which they had failed to find. On
   the 18th of January, 1778, whilst sailing through the Pacific,
   the look-out man reported land ahead, and in the evening they
   anchored on the shores of that lovely group of twelve islands,
   which they named in honour of the then First Lord of the
   Admiralty—Lord Sandwich—better known to the satirists of his
   day as 'Jemmy Tickler,' one of the greatest of statesmen and
   most abandoned of men. The natives received the strangers
   gladly; but on the 14th of February, 1779, in an altercation
   consequent on the theft of a boat, Captain Cook was killed in
   Kealakcakua or Karakakoa Bay, in the Island of Hawaii, or
   Owhyhee, from which the official name of the country—the
   kingdom of Hawaii—takes its name."

      R. Brown,
      The Countries of the World,
      volume 4, page 22.

   The several islands of the Hawaiian group were politically
   independent of each other and ruled by different chiefs at the
   time of Captain Cook's visit; but a few years later a chief
   named Kaméhaméha, of remarkable qualities and capabilities,
   succeeded to the sovereignty in the Island of Hawaii, and made
   himself master in time of the whole group. Dying in 1819, he
   left a consolidated kingdom to his son Liholiho, or Kaméhaméha
   II., in whose reign "tabu" and idolatry were abolished and
   Christian missionaries began their labors. The dynasty founded
   by Kaméhaméha held the throne until 1872. In 1840 a
   constitution was proclaimed, which created a legislative body,
   composed of hereditary nobles and seven representatives
   informally elected by the people. In 1842 the United States,
   by an official letter from Daniel Webster, then Secretary of
   State, "recognized the independence of the Hawaiian Kingdom,
   and declared, 'as the sense of the government of the United
   States, that the government of the Sandwich Islands ought to
   be respected; that no power ought to take possession of the
   islands, either as a conquest or for the purpose of
   colonization; and that no power ought to seek for any undue
   control over the existing government, or any exclusive
   privileges or preferences in matters of commerce.'" The
   following year, France and England formally recognized "the
   existence in the Sandwich Islands of a government capable of
   providing for the regularity of its relations with foreign
   nations," and agreed "never to take possession, either
   directly or under the title of a protectorate, or under any
   other form, of any part of the territory of which they are
   composed." In 1852 the constitution was revised. The
   legislature, formerly sitting in one body, was now divided
   into two houses and both enlarged.
   In 1864, however, King Kaméhaméha V. forced the adoption of a
   new constitution which reversed this bicameral arrangement and
   restored the single chamber. A double qualification of the
   suffrage, by property and by education, was also introduced.
   With the death of Kaméhaméha V., in 1872, his line ended. His
   successor, Lunalilo, was elected by the legislature, and the
   choice ratified by a popular vote. The reign of Lunalilo
   lasted but two years. His successor, David Kalakaua, was
   raised to the throne by election. In the year after his
   accession, Kalakaua visited the United States, and soon
   afterwards, in 1875, a treaty of reciprocity between the two
   countries was negotiated. This was renewed and enlarged in
   1887. In 1881 the King made a tour of the world. In the fall
   of 1890 he came to California for his health; in January,
   1891, he died at San Francisco. His sister, Liliuokulani,
   widow of an American resident, succeeded him.

      W. D. Alexander,
      Brief History of the Hawaiian People.

   In 1887 a new constitution had been adopted. "This new
   constitution was not framed by the king but by the people
   through their own appointed citizens and members of the
   courts. The legislative powers of the crown which had been
   abridged by the constitution of 1864 were now entirely removed
   and vested in the representatives of the people. By this the
   crown became an executive. In addition to this provision there
   was one making the ministry a responsible body and depriving
   the king of the right to nominate members of the house of
   nobles. … The legislature consists of a House of Nobles
   composed of twenty-four members, who are elected for a term of
   six years, and a House of Representatives consisting of from
   twenty-four to forty-two members elected for two years. The
   Houses sit in joint session. In addition to these public
   officers there is a cabinet composed of four ministers
   appointed by the sovereign holding executive power and who may
   be removed upon sufficient cause by the legislature. Such was
   the form of government in vogue up to the time of the recent
   revolution which has excited the interest of the American
   government. On the 15th of January (1893) … Queen
   Liliuokalani made the attempt to promulgate a new
   constitution, obviously for the purpose of increasing her
   power in the government. It has been hinted that the queen
   desired to benefit in a pecuniary way by granting concessions
   for the establishment of a lottery, and the importation of
   opium into the kingdom, both of which had until a year ago
   been prohibited. It is best, however, to adhere to fact. The
   queen desired more power. This new constitution, as framed by
   her, deprived foreigners of the right of franchise, abrogated
   the House of Nobles, and gave to the queen herself the power
   to appoint a new House. This blow aimed directly at the
   foreigners, who are the largest property holders in the
   kingdom, stirred them to prompt action. The queen's own
   ministry were unsuccessful in their efforts to dissuade her
   from the attempt to put the new constitution into effect. The
   resolve was not to be shaken, however, and her determination
   to carry out her plan incited the people, chiefly the
   foreigners, to oppose the measure. The outcome was a
   revolution in which not a single life was sacrificed."

      A. A. Black,
      The Hawaiian Islands
      (Chautauquan, April, 1893, pages 54-57).

   A provisional government set up by the revolutionists was
   immediately recognized by the United States Minister, Mr.
   Stevens, and commissioners were sent to Washington to apply
   for the annexation of the islands to the United States. On the
   16th of February, 1893, the President of the United States,
   Mr. Harrison, sent a message to the Senate, submitting an
   annexation treaty and recommending its ratification. Meantime,
   at Honolulu, on the 9th of February, the United States
   Minister, acting without instructions, had established a
   protectorate over the Hawaiian Islands, in the name of the
   United States. On the 4th of March, a change in the Presidency
   of the United States occurred, Mr. Cleveland succeeding Mr.
   Harrison. One of the earliest acts of President Cleveland was
   to send a message to the Senate, withdrawing the annexation
   treaty of his predecessor. A commissioner, Mr. Blount, was
   then sent to the Hawaiian Islands to examine and report upon
   the circumstances attending the change of government. On the
   18th of the following December the report of Commissioner
   Blount was sent to Congress, with an accompanying message from
   the President, in which latter paper the facts set forth by
   the Commissioner, and the conclusions reached and action taken
   by the United States Government, were summarized partly as
   follows: "On Saturday, January 14, 1893, the Queen of Hawaii,
   who had been contemplating the proclamation of a new
   constitution, had, in deference to the wishes and
   remonstrances of her Cabinet, renounced it for the present at
   least. Taking this relinquished purpose as a basis of action,
   citizens of Honolulu, numbering from fifty to one hundred,
   mostly resident aliens, met in a private room and selected a
   so-culled committee of safety composed of thirteen persons,
   nine of whom were foreign subjects, and composed of seven
   Americans, one Englishman, and one German. This committee,
   though its designs were not revealed, had in view nothing less
   than annexation to the United States, and between Saturday,
   the 14th, and the following Sunday, the 18th of
   January—though exactly what action was taken may never be
   revealed—they were certainly in communication with the United
   States Minister. On Monday morning the Queen and her Cabinet
   made public proclamation, with a notice which was specially
   served upon the representatives of all foreign governments,
   that any changes in the constitution would be sought only in
   the methods provided by that instrument. Nevertheless, at the
   call and under the auspices of the committee of safety, a mass
   meeting of citizens was held on that day to protest against
   the Queen's alleged illegal and unlawful proceedings and
   purpose. Even at this meeting the committee of safety
   continued to disguise their real purpose and contented
   themselves with procuring the passage of a resolution
   denouncing the Queen and empowering the committee to devise
   ways and means 'to secure the permanent maintenance of law and
   order and the protection of life, liberty, and property in
   Hawaii.' This meeting adjourned between 3 and 4 o'clock in the
   afternoon. On the same day, and immediately after such
   adjournment, the committee, unwilling to take further steps
   without the co-operation of the United States Minister,
   addressed him a note representing that the public safety was
   menaced and that lives and property were in danger, and
   concluded as follows: 'We are unable to protect ourselves
   without aid, and therefore pray for the protection of the
   United States forces.'
   Whatever may be thought of the other contents of this note,
   the absolute truth of this latter statement is incontestable.
   When the note was written and delivered, the committee, so far
   as it appears, had neither a man nor a gun at their command,
   and after its delivery they became so panic-stricken at their
   position that they sent some of their number to interview the
   Minister and request him not to land the United States forces
   till the next morning, but he replied the troops had been
   ordered and whether the committee were ready or not the
   landing should take place. And so it happened that on the 16th
   day of January, 1893, between 4 and 5 o'clock in the
   afternoon, a detachment of marines from the United States
   steamship Boston, with two pieces of artillery, landed at
   Honolulu. The men, upwards of one hundred and sixty in all,
   were supplied with double cartridge belts, filled with
   ammunition, and with haversacks and canteens, and were
   accompanied by a hospital corps with stretchers and medical
   supplies. This military demonstration upon the soil of
   Honolulu was of itself an act of war, unless made either with
   the consent of the Government of Hawaii or for the bona fide
   purpose of protecting the imperilled lives and property of the
   citizens of the United States. But there is no pretense of any
   such consent on the part of the Government of Hawaii, which at
   that time was undisputed, and was both the de facto and the de
   jure Government. In point of fact the Government, instead of
   requesting the presence of an armed force, protested against
   it. There is little basis for the pretense that such forces
   landed for the security of American life and property. …
   When these armed men were landed the city of Honolulu was in
   its customary orderly and peaceful condition. There was no
   symptom of riot or disturbance in any quarter. … Thus it
   appears that Hawaii was taken possession of by the United
   States forces without the consent or wish of the Government of
   the Islands, or anybody else so far as known, except the
   United States Minister. Therefore, the military occupation of
   Honolulu by the United States on the day mentioned was wholly
   without satisfaction, either as an occupation by consent or as
   an occupation necessitated by dangers threatening American
   life and property. It must be accounted for in some other way
   and on some other ground, and its real motive and purpose are
   neither obscure nor far to seek. The United States forces
   being now on the scene and favorably stationed, the committee
   proceeded to carry out their original scheme. They met the
   next morning, Tuesday, the 17th, perfected the plan of
   temporary government and fixed upon its principal officers,
   who were drawn from 13 members of the committee of safety.
   Between 1 and 2 o'clock, by squads and by different routes to
   avoid notice, and having first taken the precaution of
   ascertaining whether there was anyone there to oppose them,
   they proceeded to the Government building to proclaim the new
   Government. No sign of opposition was manifest, and thereupon
   an American citizen began to read the proclamation from the
   steps of the Government Building almost entirely without
   auditors. It is said that before the reading was finished
   quite a concourse of persons, variously estimated at from 50
   to 100, some armed and some unarmed, gathered about the
   committee to give them aid and confidence. This statement is
   not important, since the one controlling factor in the whole
   affair was unquestionably the United States marines, who,
   drawn up under arms with artillery in readiness only 76 yards
   distant, dominated the situation. The Provisional Government
   thus proclaimed was by the terms of the proclamation 'to exist
   until terms of the Union with the United States had been
   negotiated and agreed upon.' The United States Minister,
   pursuant to prior agreement, recognized this Government within
   an hour after the reading of the proclamation, and before 5
   o'clock, in answer to an inquiry on behalf of the Queen and
   her Cabinet, announced that he had done so. … Some hours
   after the recognition of the Provisional Government by the
   United States Minister, the barracks and the police station,
   with all the military resources of the country, were delivered
   up by the Queen upon the representation made to her that her
   cause would thereafter be reviewed at Washington, and while
   protesting that she surrendered to the superior force of the
   United States, whose Minister had caused United States troops
   to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support
   the Provisional Government, and that she yielded her authority
   to prevent collision of armed forces and loss of life, and
   only until such time as the United States, upon the facts
   being presented to it, should undo the action of its
   representative and reinstate her in the authority she claimed
   as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands. This
   protest was delivered to the chief of the Provisional
   Government, who indorsed it in his acknowledgment of its
   receipt. … As I apprehend the situation, we are brought face
   to face with the fact that the lawful government of Hawaii was
   overthrown without the drawing of a sword or the firing of a
   shot, by a process every step of which, it may safely be
   asserted, is directly traceable to and dependent for its
   success upon the agency of the United States acting through
   its diplomatic and naval representatives. … Believing,
   therefore, that the United States could not, under the
   circumstances disclosed, annex the islands without justly
   incurring the imputation of acquiring them by unjustifiable
   methods, I shall not again submit the treaty of annexation to
   the Senate for its consideration, and in the instructions to
   Minister Willis, a copy of which accompanies this message, I
   have directed him to so inform the Provisional Government. But
   in the present instance our duty does not, in my opinion, end
   with refusing to consummate this questionable transaction. …
   I mistake the American people if they favor the odious
   doctrine that there is no such thing as international
   morality; that there is one law for a strong nation and
   another for a weak one; and that even by indirection a strong
   power may, with impunity, despoil a weak one of its territory.
   … The Queen surrendered, not to the Provisional Government,
   but to the United States. She surrendered not absolutely and
   permanently, but temporarily and conditionally until such
   facts could be considered by the United States. …
   In view of the fact that both the Queen and the Provisional
   Government had at one time apparently acquiesced in a
   reference of the entire case to the United States Government,
   and considering the further fact that, in any event, the
   Provisional Government, by its own declared limitation, was
   only 'to exist until terms of union with the United States of
   America have been negotiated and agreed upon,' I hoped that
   after the assurance to the members of that Government that
   such union could not be consummated, I might compass a
   peaceful adjustment of the difficulty. Actuated by these
   desires and purposes, and not unmindful of the inherent
   perplexities of the situation nor limitations upon my part, I
   instructed Mr. Willis to advise the Queen and her supporters
   of my desire to aid in the restoration of the status existing
   before the lawless landing of the United States forces at
   Honolulu on the 17th of January last, if such restoration
   could be effected upon terms providing for clemency as well as
   justice to all parties concerned. The conditions suggested
   contemplated a general amnesty to those concerned in setting
   up the Provisional Government and a recognition of all the
   bona fide acts and obligations. In short, they require that
   the past should be buried, and that the restored Government
   should reassume its authority as if its continuity had not
   been interrupted. These conditions have not proved acceptable
   to the Queen, and though she has been informed that they will
   be insisted upon, and that unless acceded to the effort of the
   President to aid in the restoration of her Government will
   cease, I have not thus far learned that she is willing to
   yield them her acquiescence." The refusal of the Queen to
   consent to a general amnesty forbade further thought of her
   restoration; while the project of annexation to the United
   States was extinguished for the time by the just action of
   President Cleveland, sustained by the Senate. The unauthorized
   protectorate assumed by Minister Stevens having been
   withdrawn, the Provisional government remains (March, 1894) in
   control of the Government of the Hawaiian Islands, and a
   republican constitution is said to be in preparation.


      See AMERICA: A. D. 1562-1567.

HAWKWOOD, Sir John, The Free Company of.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

HAWLEY, Jesse, and the origin of the Erie Canal.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1825.

HAYES, General Rutherford B.,
   Presidential election and administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876-1877, to 1881.


      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.

   ----------HAYTI: Start--------

HAYTI, HAITI, OR SAN DOMINGO (Originally called Hispaniola):
   Its names.
   Its beauty.

   "Columbus called the island Hispaniola, and it has also been
   called St. Domingo from the city of that name on its
   southeastern coast; but Hayti or Haiti (the mountainous
   country) was its original Carrib name. The French bestowed
   upon it the deserved name of 'la Reine des Antilles.' All
   descriptions of its magnificence and beauty, even those of
   'Washington Irving in his history of Columbus, fall far short
   of the reality. It seems beyond the power of language to
   exaggerate its beauties, its productiveness, the loveliness of
   its climate, and its desirableness as an abode for man.
   Columbus labored hard to prove to Isabella that he had found
   here the original garden of Eden."

      W. H. Pearson,
      Hayti and the Haitians
      (Putnam's Monthly Magazine, January, 1854).

HAYTI: A. D. 1492-1505.
   Discovery and occupation by Columbus.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1492; 1493-1496; and 1498-1505.

HAYTI: A. D. 1499-1542.
   The enslavement of the natives.
   System of Repartimentos and Encomiendas.
   Introduction of negro slavery.
   Humane and reforming labors of Las Casas.


HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.
   Partly possessed France and partly by Spain.
   Revolt of the Slaves and rise of Toussaint L'Ouverture to power.
   Extinction of Slavery.
   Treachery of the French.
   Independence of the island acquired.

   "About 1632 the French took possession of the western shore,
   and increased so rapidly that the Spaniards found it
   impossible to drive them out; and the footing they had gained
   was recognized by the Treaty of Ryswick, in 1697, when the
   western portion of Haiti was confirmed to France. The latter
   nation was fully conscious of the importance of the new
   acquirement, and under French rule it became of great value,
   supplying almost all Europe with cotton and sugar. But the
   larger eastern portion of the island, which still belonged to
   Spain, had no share in this progress, remaining much in the
   same condition as formerly; and thus matters stood—a sluggish
   community side by side with a thriving one—when the French
   Revolution broke out, and plunged the island into a state of
   ferment. In 1790 the population of the western colony
   consisted of half a million, of which number 38,360 were of
   European origin, 28,370 free people of colour, and the whole
   of the remainder negro slaves. The government of the island
   excluded the free people of colour—mostly mulattoes—from
   all political privileges, although they were in many cases
   well-educated men, and themselves the owners of large estates.
   … On the 15th May, 1790, the French National Assembly passed
   a decree declaring that people of colour, born of free
   parents, were entitled to all the privileges of French
   citizens. When this news reached the colony, it set the
   inhabitants in a perfect frenzy, the mulattoes manifesting an
   unbounded joy, whilst the whites boiled at the indignity their
   class had sustained. The representations of the latter caused
   the governor to delay the operation of the decree until the
   home government could be communicated with—a measure that
   aroused the greatest indignation amongst the mulattoes, and
   civil war appeared inevitable, when a third and wholly
   unexpected party stepped into the arena. The slaves rose in
   insurrection on August 23rd, 1791, marching with the body of a
   white infant on a spear-head as a standard, and murdering all
   Europeans indiscriminately. In the utmost consternation the
   whites conceded the required terms to the mulattoes, and,
   together with the help of the military, the rising was
   suppressed, and there seemed a prospect of peace, when the
   Assembly at Paris repealed the decree of the 15th May. The
   mulattoes now flew to arms, and for several years a terrible
   struggle was sustained, the horrors of which were augmented by
   vindictive ferocity on both sides. Commissioners sent from
   France could effect no settlement, for the camp of the whites
   was divided into two hostile sections, royalist and
   The English and Spaniards both descended on the island, and
   the blacks, under able chiefs, held impregnable positions in
   the mountains. Apprehensive of a British invasion in force,
   the Commissioners, finding they could not conquer the blacks,
   resolved on conciliating them; and in August, 1793, universal
   freedom was proclaimed—a measure ratified by the National
   Convention early in the following year. Meanwhile the English
   had taken Port-au-Prince, and were besieging the French
   governor in Port de la Paix, when the blacks, relying on the
   recent proclamation, came to his assistance, under the command
   of Toussaint L'Ouverture, and effected his release. …
   François Dominique Toussaint, a negro of pure blood, a slave
   and the offspring of slaves, was born in 1743, and on
   attaining manhood was first employed as a coachman, and
   afterwards held a post of trust in connexion with the sugar
   manufactory of the estate to which he belonged. The overseer
   having taken a fancy to him, he was taught to read and write,
   and even picked up some slight knowledge of Latin and
   mathematics." He was slow to join the rising of the blacks;
   "but at length, after having secured the escape of his master
   and family, he joined the negro army in a medical capacity,"
   but quickly rose to leadership. "At first the blacks fought
   with the Spaniards against the French;" but Toussaint came to
   the conclusion that they had more to hope from the French, and
   persuaded his followers to march to the relief of the French
   governor, Levaux. When the latter heard that Toussaint had won
   the blacks to this alliance, he exclaimed, "'Mais cet homme
   fait ouverture partout,' and from that day the black
   commander-in-chief received the surname of L'Ouverture, by
   which he is best known in history. Acting with wonderful
   energy, Toussaint effected a junction with Levaux, drove the
   English from their positions, took 28 Spanish batteries in
   four days, and finally the British abandoned the island,
   whilst the Spaniards [1797] gave up all claim to its western
   end. Toussaint L'Ouverture—now holding the position of
   commander-in-chief, but virtually dictator—succeeded with
   great skill in combining all the hostile elements of the
   colony. Peace was restored, commerce and agriculture revived,
   the whites were encouraged to reclaim their estates, and by a
   variety of prudent and temperate measures Toussaint showed the
   remarkable administrative abilities that he possessed. At this
   stage he assumed great state in public, being always guarded
   by a chosen body of 1,500 men in brilliant uniform, but in
   private life he was frugal and moderate. In the administration
   of affairs he was assisted by a council of nine, of whom eight
   were white planters. This body drew up a Constitution by which
   L'Ouverture was named president for life, and free trade
   established. The draft of this constitution, together with an
   autograph letter, he forwarded to Bonaparte; but the First
   Consul had no toleration for fellow-upstarts, and replied, 'He
   is a revolted slave whom we must punish; the honour of France
   is outraged.' At this time the whole island of Haiti was under
   Toussaint's sway. As some excuse for Bonaparte it must be
   acknowledged that Toussaint undoubtedly contemplated
   independence. … Anxious to divest his new presidency of even
   nominal subjection to France, he declared the independence of
   the island, with himself as supreme chief, in July 1801. Most
   unfortunately for the Haitian general, hostilities had for the
   moment ceased between Great Britain and France, and the First
   Consul was enabled to bestow his close attention on the former
   French colony. Determined to repossess it, Bonaparte sent out
   an army of 30,000 men, with 66 ships of war, under the command
   of his brother-in-law General Leclerc. … During Toussaint's
   presidency he had abolished slavery, the negroes still working
   the plantations, but as free men, and under the name of
   'cultivators.' … Leclerc now endeavoured by proclamations to
   turn the cultivators against their chief, and also laboured to
   sow dissension in the ranks of the black army, by making the
   officers tempting offers, which they too often believed in and
   accepted. For months a bloody war raged, in which great
   cruelties were inflicted; but the discipline of the French was
   slowly telling in their favour, when Leclerc made a political
   blunder that destroyed the advantages he had gained. Thinking
   that all obstacles were overcome, he threw off the mask, and
   boldly declared the real object of the expedition—the
   re-enslavement of the negro population. This news fell like a
   thunderbolt amongst the blacks, who rallied round Toussaint in
   thousands." Alarmed at the effect, Leclerc recalled his
   proclamation, acknowledged it to be an error, and promised the
   summoning of an assembly representative of all races alike.
   "This specious programme won over Cristophe, Dessalines, and
   other negro generals; and finally, on receiving solemn
   assurances from Leclerc, Toussaint accepted his offers, and
   peace was concluded." Soon afterwards, by an act of the
   blackest treachery, the negro statesman and soldier was lured
   into the hands of his mean enemy, and sent, a prisoner, to
   France. Confined, without trial, or any hearing, in the
   dungeons of the Château Joux, in the department of Doubs, he
   was there allowed to pine away, without warm clothing and
   with insufficient food. … Finally the governor of the prison
   went away for four days, leaving his captive without food or
   drink. On his return Toussaint was dead, and the rats had
   gnawed his feet. It was given out that apoplexy was the cause
   of death. … This breach of faith on the part of the French
   aroused the fury and indignation of the blacks. … Under
   Dessalines, Cristophe, Clerveaux, and others, the fires of
   insurrection blazed out afresh." At the same time yellow fever
   raged and Leclerc was among the victims. General Rochambeau,
   who succeeded him, continued the war with unmeasured
   barbarity, but also with continued defeat and discouragement,
   until he was driven, in 1803, to surrender, and "the power of
   the French was lost on the island."

      C. H. Eden,
      The West Indies,
      chapter 13.

      Toussaint L'Ouverture: A Biography.
      (by J. R. Beard) and an Autobiography.

      ALSO IN:
      H. Martineau,
      The Hour and the Man.

      J. Brown,
      History of St. Domingo.

      H. Adams,
      Historical Essays,
      chapter 4.

HAYTI: A. D. 1639-1700.
   The Buccaneers.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.


HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.
   Massacre of whites.
   The Empire of Dessalines.
   The kingdom of Christophe.
   The Republic of Pétion and Boyer.
   Separation of the independent Republic of San Domingo.
   The Empire of Soulouque.
   The restored Republic of Hayti.

   "In the beginning of 1804 the independence of the negroes
   under Dessalines was sufficiently assured: but they were not
   satisfied until they had completed a general massacre of
   nearly the whole of the whites, including aged men, women and
   children, who remained in the island, numbering, according to
   the lowest estimate, 2,500 souls. Thus did Dessalines, in his
   own savage words, render war for war, crime for crime, and
   outrage for outrage, to the European cannibals who had so long
   preyed upon his unhappy race. The negroes declared Dessalines
   Emperor: and in October 1804 he was crowned at Port-au-Prince
   by the title of James I. Dessalines was at once a brave man
   and a cruel and avaricious tyrant. He acquired great influence
   over the negroes, who long remembered him with affectionate
   regret: but he was not warmly supported by the mulattoes, who
   were by far the most intelligent of the Haytians. He abolished
   the militia, and set up a standing army of 40,000 men, whom he
   found himself unable to pay, from the universal ruin which had
   overtaken the island. The plantation labourers refused to
   work. … Dessalines authorised the landowners to flog them.
   Dessalines was himself a large planter: he had 32 large
   plantations of his own at work, and he forced his labourers to
   work on them at the point of the bayonet. Both he and his
   successor, Christophe, like Mahomed Ali in Egypt, grew rich by
   being the chief merchants in their own dominions. … He
   failed in an expedition against St. Domingo, the Spanish part
   of the island, whence the French general Ferrand still
   threatened him: and at length some sanguinary acts of tyranny
   roused against him an insurrection headed by his old comrade
   Christophe. The insurgents marched on Port-au-Prince, and the
   first black Emperor was shot by an ambuscade at the Pont Rouge
   outside the town. The death of Dessalines delivered up Hayti
   once more to the horrors of civil war. The negroes and
   mulattoes, who had joined cordially enough to exterminate
   their common enemies, would no longer hold together; and ever
   since the death of Dessalines their jealousies and differences
   have been a source of weakness in the black republic. In the
   old times, Hayti, as the French part of the island of Española
   was henceforth called, had been divided into three provinces:
   South, East, and North. After the death of Dessalines each of
   these provinces became for a time a separate state. Christophe
   wished to maintain the unlimited imperialism which Dessalines
   had set up: but the Constituent Assembly, which he summoned at
   Port-au-Prince in 1806, had other views. They resolved upon a
   Republican constitution." Christophe, not contented with the
   offered presidency, "collected an army with the view of
   dispersing the Constituent Assembly: but they collected one of
   their own, under Pétion, and forced him to retire from the
   capital. Christophe maintained himself in Cap François, or, as
   it is now called, Cap Haytien; and here he ruled for 14 years.
   In 1811, despising the imperial title which Dessalines had
   desecrated, he took the royal style by the name of Henry I.
   Christophe, as a man, was nearly as great a monster as
   Dessalines. … Yet Christophe at his best was a man capable
   of great aims, and a sagacious and energetic ruler." In 1820,
   finding himself deserted in the face of a mulatto
   insurrection, he committed suicide. "In a month or two after
   Christophe's suicide the whole island was united under the
   rule of President Boyer." Boyer was the successor of Pétion,
   who had been elected in the North, under the republican
   constitution which Christophe refused submission to. Pétion,
   "a mulatto of the best type," educated at the military academy
   of Paris, and full of European ideas, had ruled the province
   which he controlled ably and well for eleven years. In
   discouragement he then took his own life, and was succeeded,
   in 1818, by his lieutenant, Jean Pierre Boyer, a mulatto. "On
   the suicide of Christophe, the army of the Northern Province,
   weary of the tyranny of one of their own race, declared for
   Boyer. The French part of the island was now once more under a
   single government: and Boyer turned his attention to the much
   larger Spanish territory, with the old capital of St. Domingo,
   where a Spaniard named Muñez de Caceres, with the aid of the
   negroes, had now followed the example in the West, and
   proclaimed an independent government. The Dominicans, however,
   were still afraid of Spain, and were glad to put themselves
   under the wing of Hayti: Boyer was not unwilling to take
   possession of the Spanish colony, and thus it happened that in
   1822 he united the whole island under his Presidency. In the
   same year he was elected President for life under the
   constitution of Pétion, whose general policy he maintained:
   but his government, especially in his later years, was almost
   as despotic as that of Christophe. Boyer was the first Haytian
   who united the blacks and mulattoes under his rule. It was
   mainly through confidence in him that the government of Hayti
   won the recognition of the European powers. … In 1825 its
   independence was formally recognised by France, on a
   compensation of 150,000,000 of francs being guaranteed to the
   exiled planters and to the home government. This vast sum was
   afterwards reduced: but it still weighed heavily on the
   impoverished state, and the discontents which the necessary
   taxation produced led to Boyer's downfall," in 1843, when he
   withdrew to Jamaica, and afterwards to Paris, where he died in
   1850. A singular state of affairs ensued. The eastern, or
   Spanish, part of the island resumed its independence (1844),
   under a republican constitution resembling that of Venezuela,
   and with Pedro Santana for its President, and has been known
   since that time as the Republic of San Domingo, or the
   Dominican Republic. In the Western, or Haytian Republic, large
   numbers of the negroes, "under the names of Piquets and
   Zinglins, now formed themselves into armed bands, and sought
   to obtain a general division of property under some
   communistic monarch of their own race. The mulatto officials
   now cajoled the poor negroes by bribing some old negro, whose
   name was well known to the mass of the people as one of the
   heroes of the war of liberty, to allow himself to be set up as
   President. The Boyerists, as the mulatto oligarchy were
   called, thus succeeded in re-establishing their power," and
   their system (for describing which the word "gerontocracy" has
   been invented) was carried on for some years, until it
   resulted, in 1847, in the election to the Presidency of
   General Faustin Soulouque. "Soulouque was an illiterate negro
   whose recommendations to power were that he was old enough to
   have taken part in the War of Independence, having been a
   lieutenant under Pétion, and that he was popular with the
   negroes, being devotedly attached to the strange mixture of
   freemasonry and fetish worship by which the Haytian blacks
   maintain their political organisation."
   The new President took his elevation more seriously than was
   expected, and proved to be more than a match for the mulattoes
   who thought to make him their puppet. He gathered the reins
   into his own hands, and crushed the mulattoes at
   Port-au-Prince by a general massacre. He then "caused himself
   to be proclaimed Emperor, by the title of Faustinus the First
   (1849)," and established a grotesque imperial court, with a
   fantastic nobility, in which a Duke de Lemonade figured by the
   side of a Prince Tape-à-l'œil. This lasted until December
   1858, when Soulouque was dethroned and sent out of the
   country, to take refuge in Jamaica, and the republic was
   restored, with Fabre Nicholas Geffrard, a mulatto general, at
   its head. Geffrard held the Presidency for eight years, when
   he followed his predecessor into exile in Jamaica, and was
   succeeded by General Salnave, a negro, who tried to
   re-establish the Empire and was shot, 1869. Since that time
   revolutions have been frequent and nothing has been constant
   except the disorder and decline of the country. Meantime, the
   Dominican Republic has suffered scarcely less, from its own
   disorders and the attacks of its Haytian neighbors. In 1861 it
   was surrendered by a provisional government to Spain, but
   recovered independence three years later. Soon afterwards one
   of its parties sought annexation to the United States, and in
   1869 the President of the latter republic, General Grant,
   concluded a treaty with the Dominican government for the
   cession of the peninsula of Samana, and for the placing of San
   Domingo under American protection. But the Senate of the
   United States refused to ratify the treaty.

      E. J. Payne,
      History of European Colonies,
      chapter 15.

      ALSO IN:
      Sir S. St. John,
      Hayti, or the Black Republic,
      chapter 3.

   ----------HAYTI: End--------


      See IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867.


      See IRELAND: A. D.1760-1798.

   Battle of the (635).

   Defeat of the Welsh, with the death of Cadwallon, the "last
   great hero of the British race," by the English of Bernicia,
   A.D. 635. "The victory of the Heaven-field indeed is memorable
   as the close of the last rally which the Britons ever made
   against their conquerors."

      J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      page 275.

      ALSO IN:
      Ecclesiastical History,
      book 3, chapters 1-2.


      See FRANCE: A. D. 1790; 1793 (MARCH-JUNE),

HEBREW, The Name.


   ----------HEBRIDES: Start--------


   "The Hebrides or Western Islands comprise all the numerous
   islands and islets which extend along nearly all the west
   coast of Scotland; and they anciently comprised also the
   peninsula of Cantyre, the islands of the Clyde, the isle of
   Rachlin, and even for some time the isle of Man."

      Historical Tales of the Wars of Scotland,
      volume 3, page 60.

HEBRIDES: 9th-13th Centuries.
   The dominion of the Northmen.

      and 10TH-13TH CENTURIES;
      also, SODOR AND MAN.

HEBRIDES: A. D. 1266.
   Cession to Scotland.

      See SCOTLAND; A. D. 1266.

HEBRIDES: A. D. 1346-1504.
   The Lords of the Isles.

   In 1346, the dominion of most of the Hebrides became
   consolidated under John, son of Ronald or Angus Oig, of Islay,
   and he assumed the title of "Lord of the Isles." The Lords of
   the Isles became substantially independent of the Scottish
   crown until the battle of Harlaw, in 1411 (see HARLAW, BATTLE
   OF). The lordship was extinguished in 1504 (see SCOTLAND: A.
   D. 1502-1504).

      Historical Tales of the Wars of Scotland,
      pages 65-72.

   ----------HEBRIDES: End--------


   In the settlement of the tribes of Israel, after the conquest
   of Canaan, Caleb, one of the heroes of Judah, "took possession
   of the territory round the famous old city of Hebron, and
   thereby gained for his tribe a seat held sacred from
   Patriarchal times. … Beginning with Hebron, he acquired for
   himself a considerable territory, which even in David's time
   was named simply Caleb, and was distinguished from the rest of
   Judah as a peculiar district. … Hebron remained till after
   David's time celebrated as the main seat and central point of
   the entire tribe, around which it is evident that all the rest
   of Judah gradually clustered in good order."

      H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 2, section 3, A.

   "Hebron was a Hittite city, the centre of an ancient
   civilization, which to some extent had been inherited by the
   tribe of Judah. It was undoubtedly the capital of Judah, a
   city of the highest religious character full of recollections
   and traditions. It could boast of fine public buildings, good
   water, and a vast and well-kept pool. The unification of
   Israel had just been accomplished there. It was only natural
   that Hebron should become the capital of the new kingdom [of
   David]. … It is not easy to say what induced David to leave
   a city which had such ancient and evident claims for a hamlet
   like Jebus [Jerusalem], which did not yet belong to him. It is
   probable that he found Hebron too exclusively Judahite."

      E. Renan,
      History of the People of Israel,
      book 2, chapter 18.

      See, also, ZOAN;

HECANA, Kingdom of.

   One of the small, short-lived kingdoms of the Angles in early
   England, its territory was in modern Herefordshire.

      N. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 7, section 70.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.


   "Large sacrifices, where a great number of animals were
   slaughtered, [among the ancient Greeks] are called hecatombs."

      G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      page 60.


   Fought, B. C. 224, by Cleomenes of Sparta with the forces of
   the Achæan League, over which he won a complete victory. The
   result was the calling in of Antigonus Doson, king of
   Macedonia, to become the ally of the League, and to be aided
   by it in crushing the last independent political life of
   Peloponnesian Greece.

      C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 62.





   The chief city of Parthia Proper, founded by Alexander the
   Great, and long remaining one of the capitals of the Parthian

HEDGELEY MOOR, Battle of (1464)

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

HEDWIGA, Queen of Poland, A. D. 1382-1386.


      See BOSSISM.


   The "heerban" was a military system instituted by Charlemagne,
   which gave way to the feudal system under his successors. "The
   basis of the heerban system was the duty of every fighting man
   to answer directly the call of the king to arms. The freeman,
   not only of the Franks, but of all the subject peoples, owed
   military service to the king alone. This duty is insisted upon
   in the laws of Charlemagne with constant repetition. The
   summons (heerban) was issued at the spring meeting, and sent
   out by the counts or missi. The soldier was obliged to present
   himself at the given time, fully armed and equipped with all
   provision for the campaign, except fire, water, and fodder for
   the horses."

      E. Emerton,
      Introduction to the Study of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 14.


   "A hegemony, the political ascendancy of some one city or
   community over a number of subject commonwealths."

      Sir H. S. Maine,
      Dissertations on Early Law and Custom,
      page 131.


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

HEGIRA, Era of the.


   ----------HEIDELBERG: Start--------

   Capture by Tilly.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

   Burning of the Castle.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

   Final destruction of the Castle.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

   ----------HEIDELBERG: End--------



HEILBRONN, Union of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.


   A decisive victory won by King David over the Syrians.

      II. Samuel,
      x. 15-19.

HELENA, Arkansas, The defense of.

      A. D. 1863 (JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).


      See RHODES: B. C. 305-304.


   Under Solon's constitution for the government of Athens, "a
   body of 6,000 citizens was every year created by lot to form a
   supreme court, called Heliæa, which was divided into several
   smaller ones, not limited to any precise number of persons.
   The qualifications required for this were the same with those
   which gave admission into the general assembly, except that
   the members of the former might not be under the age of
   thirty. It was, therefore, in fact, a select portion of the
   latter, in which the powers of the larger body were
   concentrated and exercised under a judicial form."

      C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 11.


      See THESSALY.

   Acquisition by Great Britain.

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

   Cession to Germany.

      See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

   ----------HELIOPOLIS: Start--------


      See ON.

HELIOPOLIS: Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800 (JANUARY-JUNE).

   ----------HELIOPOLIS: End--------


   "To the Greek of the historical ages the idea of Hellas was
   not associated with any definite geographical limits. Wherever
   a Greek settlement existed, there for the colonists was
   Hellas. … Of a Hellas lying within certain specified bounds,
   and containing within it only Greek inhabitants, they knew

      G. W. Cox,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 1.

   "Their language was, … from the beginning, the token of
   recognition among the Hellenes. … Where this language was
   spoken—in Asia, in Europe, or in Africa—there was Hellas.
   … A considerable number of the Greek tribes which immigrated
   by land [from Asia] into the European peninsula [of Greece]
   followed the tracks of the Italicans, and, taking a westward
   route through Pæonia and Macedonia, penetrated through Illyria
   into the western half of the Alpine country of Northern
   Greece, which the formation of its hill ranges and valleys
   renders more easily accessible from the north than Thessaly in
   its secluded hollow. The numerous rivers, abounding in water,
   which flow close by one another through long gorges into the
   Ionian Sea, here facilitated an advance into the south; and
   the rich pasture-land invited immigration; so that Epirus
   became the dwelling-place of a dense crowd of population,
   which commenced its civilized career in the fertile lowlands
   of the country. Among them three main tribes were marked out,
   of which the Chaones were regarded as the most ancient. …
   Farther to the south the Thesprotians had settled, and more
   inland, in the direction of Pindus, the Molossians. A more
   ancient appellation than those of this triple division is that
   of the Greeks (Graikoi), which the Hellenes thought the
   earliest designation of their ancestors. The same name of
   Græci (Greeks) the Italicans applied to the whole family of
   peoples with whom they had once dwelt together in these
   districts. This is the first collective name of the Hellenic
   tribes in Europe. … Far away from the coast, in the
   seclusion of the hills, where lie closely together the springs
   of the Thyamis, Aous, Aracthus, and Achelous, extends at the
   base of Tomarus the lake Ioannina, on the thickly wooded banks
   of which, between fields of corn and damp meadows, lay Dodona,
   a chosen seat of the Pelasgian Zeus, the invisible God, who
   announced his presence in the rustling of the oaks, whose
   altar was surrounded by a vast circle of tripods, for a sign
   that he was the first to unite the domestic hearths and civic
   communities into a great association centering in himself.
   This Dodona was the central seat of the Græci; it was a sacred
   centre of the whole district before the Italicans commenced
   their westward journey; and at the same time the place where
   the subsequent national name of the Greeks can be first proved
   to have prevailed; for the chosen of the people, who
   administered the worship of Zeus, were called Selli or Helli,
   and after them the surrounding country Hellopia or Hellas."


      E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapters 1 and 4 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 2 (volume 2).

      G. W. Cox,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 4.

      W. E. Gladstone,
      Juventus Mundi,
      chapter 4.


   "It was the privilege of the Greeks to discover the sovereign
   efficacy of reason. They entered on the pursuit of knowledge
   with a sure and joyous instinct. Baffled and puzzled they
   might be, but they never grew weary of the quest. The
   speculative faculty which reached its height in Plato and
   Aristotle, was, when we make due allowance for time and
   circumstance, scarcely less eminent in the Ionian
   philosophers; and it was Ionia that gave birth to an idea,
   which was foreign to the East, but has become the
   starting-point of modern science,—the idea that Nature works
   by fixed laws. A fragment of Euripides speaks of him as 'happy
   who has learned to search into causes,' who 'discerns the
   deathless and ageless order of nature, whence it arose, the
   how and the why.' The early poet-philosophers of Ionia gave
   the impulse which has carried the human intellect forward
   across the line which separates empirical from scientific
   knowledge; and the Greek precocity of mind in this direction,
   unlike that of the Orientals, had in it the promise of
   uninterrupted advance in the future,—of great discoveries in
   mathematics, geometry, experimental physics, in medicine also
   and physiology. … By the middle of the fifth century B. C.
   the general conception of law in the physical world was firmly
   established in the mind of Greek thinkers. Even the more
   obscure phenomena of disease were brought within the rule.
   Hippocrates writing about a malady which was common among the
   Scythians and was thought to be preternatural says: 'As for me
   I think that these maladies are divine like all others, but
   that none is more divine or more human than another. Each has
   its natural principle and none exists without its natural
   cause.' Again, the Greeks set themselves to discover a
   rational basis for conduct. Rigorously they brought their
   actions to the test of reason, and that not only by the mouth
   of philosophers, but through their poets, historians, and
   orators. Thinking and doing—clear thought and noble
   action—did not stand opposed to the Greek mind. The
   antithesis rather marks a period when the Hellenic spirit was
   past its prime, and had taken a one-sided bent. The Athenians
   of the Periclean age—in whom we must recognise the purest
   embodiment of Hellenism—had in truth the peculiar power,
   which Thucydides claims for them, of thinking before they
   acted and of acting also. … To Greece … we owe the love of
   Science, the love of Art, the love of Freedom: not Science
   alone, Art alone, or Freedom alone, but these vitally
   correlated with one another and brought into organic union.
   And in this union we recognise the distinctive features of the
   West. The Greek genius is the European genius in its first and
   brightest bloom. From a vivifying contact with the Greek
   spirit Europe derived that new and mighty impulse which we
   call Progress. Strange it is to think that these Greeks, like
   the other members of the Indo-European family, probably had
   their cradle in the East; that behind Greek civilisation,
   Greek language, Greek mythology, there is that Eastern
   background to which the comparative sciences seem to point.
   But it is no more than a background. In spite of an
   resemblances, in spite of common customs, common words, common
   syntax, common gods, the spirit of the Greeks and of their
   Eastern kinsmen—the spirit of their civilisation, art,
   language, and mythology—remains essentially distinct. …
   From Greece came that first mighty impulse, whose far-off
   workings are felt by us to-day, and which has brought it about
   that progress has been accepted as the law and goal of human
   endeavour. Greece first took up the task of equipping man with
   all that fits him for civil life and promotes his secular well
   being; of unfolding and expanding every inborn faculty and
   energy, bodily and mental; of striving restlessly after the
   perfection of the whole, and finding in this effort after an
   unattainable ideal that by which man becomes like to the gods.
   The life of the Hellenes, like that of their Epic hero
   Achilles, was brief and brilliant. But they have been endowed
   with the gift of renewing their youth. Renan, speaking of the
   nations that are fitted to play a part in universal history,
   says 'that they must die first that the world may live through
   them;' that a people must choose between the prolonged life,
   the tranquil and obscure destiny of one who lives for himself,
   and the troubled stormy career of one who lives for humanity.
   The nation which revolves within its breast social and
   religious problems is always weak politically. Thus it was
   with the Jews, who in order to make the religious conquest of
   the world must needs disappear as a nation.' 'They lost a
   material city, they opened the reign of the spiritual
   Jerusalem.' So too it was with Greece. As a people she ceased
   to be. When her freedom was overthrown at Chaeronea, the page
   of her history was to all appearance closed. Yet from that
   moment she was to enter on a larger life and on universal
   empire. Already during the last days of her independence it
   had been possible to speak of a new Hellenism, which rested
   not on ties of blood but on spiritual kinship. This
   presentiment of Isocrates was marvellously realised. As
   Alexander passed conquering through Asia, he restored to the
   East, as garnered grain, that Greek civilisation whose seeds
   had long ago been received from the East. Each conqueror in
   turn, the Macedonian and the Roman, bowed before conquered
   Greece and learnt lessons at her feet. To the modern world too
   Greece has been the great civiliser, the oecumenical teacher,
   the disturber and regenerator of slumbering societies. She is
   the source of most of the quickening ideas which re-make
   nations and renovate literature and art. If we reckon up our
   secular possessions, the wealth and heritage of the past, the
   larger share may be traced back to Greece. One half of life
   she has made her domain,—all, or well-nigh all, that belongs
   to the present order of things and to the visible world."

      S. H. Butcher,
      Some Aspects of the Greek Genius,
      pages 9-43.

   "The part assigned to [the Greeks] in the drama of the nations
   was to create forms of beauty, to unfold ideas which should
   remain operative when the short bloom of their own existence
   was over, and thus to give a new impulse, a new direction, to
   the whole current of human life.
   The prediction which Thucydides puts into the mouth of the
   Athenian orator has been fulfilled, though not in the sense
   literally conveyed; 'Assuredly we shall not be without
   witnesses,' says Pericles; 'there are mighty documents of our
   power, which shall make us the wonder of this age, and of ages
   to come.' He was thinking of those wide-spread settlements
   which attested the empire of Athens. But the immortal
   witnesses of his race are of another kind. Like the victims of
   the war, whose epitaph he was pronouncing, the Hellenes have
   their memorial in all lands, graven, not on stone, but in the
   hearts of mankind. … Are we not warranted by what we know of
   Greek work, imperfect though our knowledge is, in saying that
   no people has yet appeared in the world whose faculty for art,
   in the largest sense of the term, has been so comprehensive?
   And there is a further point that may be noted. It has been
   said that the man of genius sometimes is such in virtue of
   combining the temperament distinctive of his nation with some
   gift of his own which is foreign to that temperament; as in
   Shakespeare the basis is English, and the individual gift a
   flexibility of spirit which is not normally English. But we
   cannot apply this remark to the greatest of ancient Greek
   writers. They present certainly a wide range of individual
   differences. Yet so distinctive and so potent is the Hellenic
   nature that, if any two of such writers be compared, however
   wide the individual differences may be,—as between
   Aristophanes and Plato, or Pindar and Demosthenes,—such
   individual differences are less significant than those common
   characteristics of the Hellenic mind which separate both the
   men compared from all who are not Hellenes. If it were
   possible to trace the process by which the Hellenic race was
   originally separated from their Aryan kinsfolk, the
   physiological basis of their qualities might perhaps be traced
   in the mingling of different tribal ingredients. As it is,
   there is no clue to these secrets of nature's alchemy: the
   Hellenes appear in the dawn of their history with that unique
   temperament already distinct: we can point only to one cause,
   and that a subordinate cause, which must have aided its
   development, namely, the geographical position of Greece. No
   people of the ancient world were so fortunately placed.
   Nowhere are the aspects of external nature more beautiful,
   more varied, more stimulating to the energies of body and
   mind. A climate which, within three parallels of latitude,
   nourishes the beeches of Pindus and the palms of the Cyclades;
   mountain barriers which at once created a framework for the
   growth of local federations, and encouraged a sturdy spirit of
   freedom; coasts abounding in natural harbors; a sea dotted
   with islands, and notable for the regularity of its
   wind-currents; ready access alike to Asia and to the western
   Mediterranean,—these were circumstances happily congenial to
   the inborn faculties of the Greek race, and admirably fitted
   to expand them."

      R. C. Jebb,
      The Growth and Influence of Classical Greek Poetry,
      pages 27-31.

   "The sense of beauty which the Greeks possessed to a greater
   extent than any other people could not fail to be caught by
   the exceptionally beautiful natural surroundings in which they
   lived; and their literature, at any rate their poetry, bears
   abundant testimony to the fact. Small though Greece is, it
   contains a greater variety, both in harmony and contrast, of
   natural beauty than most countries, however great. Its
   latitude gives it a southern climate, while its mountains
   allow of the growth of a vegetation found in more northern
   climes. Within a short space occur all the degrees of
   transition from snow-topped hills to vine-clad fountains. And
   the joy with which the beauty of their country filled the
   Greeks may be traced through all their poetry. … The two
   leading facts in the physical aspect of Greece are the sea and
   the mountains. As Europe is the most indented and has
   relatively the longest coast-line of all the continents of the
   world, so of all the countries of Europe the land of Greece is
   the most interpenetrated with arms of the sea. …

      'Two voices are there: one is of the Sea,
      One of the Mountains; each a mighty voice:
      In both from age to age thou didst rejoice;
      They were thy chosen music, Liberty!'

   Both voices spoke impressively to Greece, and her literature
   echoes their tones. So long as Greece was free and the spirit
   of freedom animated the Greeks, so long their literature was
   creative and genius marked it. When liberty perished,
   literature declined. The field of Chæronea was fatal alike to
   the political liberty and to the literature of Greece. The
   love of liberty was indeed pushed even to an extreme in
   Greece; and this also was due to the physical configuration of
   the country. Mountains, it has been said, divide; seas unite.
   The rise and the long continuance in so small a country of so
   many cities, having their own laws, constitution, separate
   history, and independent existence, can only be explained by
   the fact that in their early growth they were protected, each
   by the mountains which surrounded it, so effectually, and the
   love of liberty in this time was developed to such an extent,
   that no single city was able to establish its dominion over
   the others. … Everyone of the numerous states, whose
   separate political existence was guaranteed by the mountains,
   was actually or potentially a separate centre of civilisation
   and of literature. In some one of these states each kind of
   literature could find the conditions appropriate or necessary
   to its development. Even a state which produced no men of
   literary genius itself might become the centre at which poets
   collected and encouraged the literature it could not produce,
   as was the case with Sparta, to which Greece owed the
   development of choral lyric. … The eastern basin of the
   Mediterranean has deserved well of literature, for it brought
   Greece into communication with her colonies on the islands and
   on the surrounding coasts, and enabled the numerous Greek
   cities to co-operate in the production of a rich and varied
   literature, instead of being confined each to a one-sided and
   incomplete development. The process of communication began in
   the earliest times, as is shown by the spread of epic
   literature. Originating in Ionia, it was taken up in Cyprus,
   where the epic called the Cypria was composed, and, at the
   beginning of the sixth century it was on the coast of Africa
   in the colony of Cyrene. The rapid spread of elegiac poetry is
   even more strikingly illustrated, for we find Solon in Athens
   quoting from his contemporary Mimnermus of Colophon. Choral
   lyric, which originated in Asia Minor, was conveyed to Sparta
   by Alcman, and by Simonides of Ceos all over the Greek world.
   But although in early times we find as much interchange and
   reaction in the colonies amongst themselves as between the
   colonies and the mother-country, with the advance of time we
   find the centripetal tendency becoming dominant.
   The mother-country becomes more and more the centre to which
   all literature and art gravitates. At the beginning of the
   sixth century Sparta attracted poets from the colonies in Asia
   Minor, but the only form of literature which Sparta rewarded
   and encouraged was choral lyric. No such narrowness
   characterised Athens, and when she established herself as the
   intellectual capital of Greece, all men of genius received a
   welcome there, and we find all forms of literature deserting
   their native homes, even their native dialects, to come to
   Athens. … As long as literature had many centres, there was
   no danger of all falling by a single stroke; but when it was
   centralised in Athens, and the blow delivered by Philip at
   Chæronea had fallen on Athens, classical Greek literature
   perished in a generation. It is somewhat difficult to
   distinguish race-qualities from the characteristics impressed
   on a people by the conditions under which it lives, since the
   latter by accumulation and transmission from generation to
   generation eventually become race-qualities. Thus the Spartans
   possessed qualities common to them and the Dorians, of whom
   they were a branch, and also qualities peculiar to themselves,
   which distinguished them from other Dorians. … The ordinary
   life of a Spartan citizen was that of a soldier in camp or
   garrison, rather than that of a member of a political
   community, and this system of life was highly unfavourable to
   literature. … Other Dorians, not hemmed in by such
   unfavourable conditions as the Spartans, did provide some
   contributions to the literature of Greece, and in the nature
   of their contributions we may detect the qualities of the
   race. The Dorians in Sicily sowed the seeds of rhetoric and
   carried comedy to considerable perfection. Of imagination the
   race seems destitute: it did not produce poets. On the other
   hand, the race is eminently practical as well as prosaic, and
   their humour was of a nature which corresponded to these
   qualities. … The Æolians form a contrast both to the
   Spartans and to the Athenians. The development of
   individuality is as characteristic of the Æolians as its
   absence is of the Spartans. But the Æolians, first of all
   Greeks, possessed a cavalry, and this means that they were
   wealthy and aristocratic. … This gives us the distinction
   between the Æolians and the Athenians: among the former,
   individuality was developed in the aristocracy alone; among
   the latter, in all the citizens. The Æolians added to the
   crown of Greek literature one of the brightest of its
   jewels-lyric poetry, as we understand lyric in modern times,
   that is, the expression of the poet's feelings, on any subject
   whatever, as his individual feeling. … But it was the
   Ionians who rendered the greatest services to Greek
   literature. They were a quick-witted race, full of enterprise,
   full of resources. In them we see reflected the character of
   the sea, as in the Dorians the character of the mountains. The
   latter partook of the narrowness and exclusiveness of their
   own homes, hemmed in by mountains, and by them protected from
   the incursion of strangers and strange innovations. The
   Ionians, on the other hand, were open as the sea, and had as
   many moods. They were eminently susceptible to beauty in all
   its forms, to the charm of change and to novelty. They were
   ever ready to put any belief or institution to the test of
   discussion, and were governed as much by ideas as by
   sentiments. Keenness of intellect, taste in all matters of
   literature and art, grace in expression, and measure in
   everything distinguished them above all Greeks. The
   development of epic poetry, the origin of prose, the
   cultivation of philosophy, are the proud distinction of the
   Ionian race. In Athens we have the qualities of the Ionian
   race in their finest flower."

      F. B. Jevons,
      A History of Greek Literature,
      pages 485-490.

   Hellenism and the Jews.

   "The Jewish region … was, in ancient times as well as in the
   Graeco-Roman period, surrounded on all sides by heathen
   districts. Only at Jamnia and Joppa had the Jewish element
   advanced as far as the sea. Elsewhere, even to the west, it
   was not the sea, but the Gentile region of the Philistine and
   Phenician cities, that formed the boundary of the Jewish.
   These heathen lands were far more deeply penetrated by
   Hellenism, than the country of the Jews. No reaction like the
   rising of the Maccabees had here put a stop to it, besides
   which heathen polytheism was adapted in quite a different
   manner from Judaism for blending with Hellenism. While
   therefore the further advance of Hellenism was obstructed by
   religious barriers in the interior of Palestine, it had
   attained here, as in all other districts since its triumphant
   entry under Alexander the Great, its natural preponderance
   over Oriental culture. Hence, long before the commencement of
   the Roman period, the educated world, especially in the great
   cities in the west and east of Palestine, was, we may well
   say, completely Hellenized. It is only with the lower strata
   of the populations and the dwellers in rural districts, that
   this must not be equally assumed. Besides however the border
   lands, the Jewish districts in the interior of Palestine were
   occupied by Hellenism, especially Scythopolis … and the town
   of Samaria, where Macedonian colonists had already been
   planted by Alexander the Great … while the national
   Samaritans had their central point at Sichem. The victorious
   penetration of Hellenistic culture is most plainly and
   comprehensively shown by the religious worship. The native
   religions, especially in the Philistine and Phenician cities,
   did indeed in many respects maintain themselves in their
   essential character; but still in such wise, that they were
   transformed by and blended with Greek elements. But besides
   these the purely Greek worship also gained an entrance, and in
   many places entirely supplanted the former. Unfortunately our
   sources of information do not furnish us the means of
   separating the Greek period proper from the Roman; the best
   are afforded by coins, and these for the most part belong to
   the Roman. On the whole however the picture, which we obtain,
   holds good for the pre-Roman period also, nor are we entirely
   without direct notices of this age. … In the Jewish region
   proper Hellenism was in its religious aspect triumphantly
   repulsed by the rising of the Maccabees; it was not till after
   the overthrow of Jewish nationality in the wars of Vespasian
   and Hadrian, that an entrance for heathen rites was forcibly
   obtained by the Romans. In saying this however we do not
   assert, that the Jewish people of those early times remained
   altogether unaffected by Hellenism. For the latter was a
   civilising power, which extended itself to every department of
   It fashioned in a peculiar manner the organization of the
   state, legislation, the administration of justice, public
   arrangements, art and science, trade and industry, and the
   customs of daily life down to fashion and ornaments, and thus
   impressed upon every department of life, wherever its
   influence reached, the stamp of the Greek mind. It is true
   that Hellenistic is not identical with Hellenic culture. The
   importance of the former on the contrary lay in the fact, that
   by its reception of the available elements of all foreign
   cultures within its reach, it became a world-culture. But this
   very world-culture became in its turn a peculiar whole, in
   which the preponderant Greek element was the ruling keynote.
   Into the stream of this Hellenistic culture the Jewish people
   was also drawn; slowly indeed and with reluctance, but yet
   irresistibly, for though religious zeal was able to banish
   heathen worship and all connected therewith from Israel, it
   could not for any length of time restrain the tide of
   Hellenistic culture in other departments of life. Its several
   stages cannot indeed be any longer traced. But when we reflect
   that the small Jewish country was enclosed on almost every
   side by Hellenistic regions, with which it was compelled, even
   for the sake of trade, to hold continual intercourse, and when
   we remember, that even the rising of the Maccabees was in the
   main directed not against Hellenism in general, but only
   against the heathen religion, that the later Asmonaeans bore
   in every respect a Hellenistic stamp-employed foreign
   mercenaries, minted foreign coins, took Greek names, etc., and
   that some of them, e. g. Aristobulus I., were direct favourers
   of Hellenism,—when all this is considered, it may safely be
   assumed, that Hellenism had, notwithstanding the rising of the
   Maccabees, gained access in no inconsiderable measure into
   Palestine even before the commencement of the Roman period."

      E. Schürer,
      History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ,
      division 2, volume 1, pages 29-30.

   Hellenism and the Romans.

   "In the Alexandrian age, with all its close study and
   imitation of the classical models, nothing is more remarkable
   than the absence of any promise that the Hellenic spirit which
   animated those masterpieces was destined to have any abiding
   influence in the world. … And yet it is true that the vital
   power of the Hellenic genius was not fully revealed, until,
   after suffering some temporary eclipse in the superficially
   Greek civilizations of Asia and Egypt, it emerged in a new
   quality, as a source of illumination to the literature and the
   art of Rome. Early Roman literature was indebted to Greece for
   the greater part of its material; but a more important debt
   was in respect to the forms and moulds of composition. The
   Latin language of the third century B. C. was already in full
   possession of the qualities which always remained distinctive
   of it; it was clear, strong, weighty, precise, a language made
   to be spoken in the imperative mood, a fitting interpreter of
   government and law. But it was not flexible or graceful,
   musical or rapid; it was not suited to express delicate shades
   of thought or feeling; for literary purposes, it was, in
   comparison with Greek, a poor and rude idiom. The development
   of Latin into the language of Cicero and Virgil was gradually
   and laboriously accomplished under the constant influence of
   Greece. That finish of form, known as classical, which Roman
   writers share with Greek, was a lesson which Greece slowly
   impressed upon Rome. … A close and prolonged study of the
   Greek models could not end in a mere discipline of form; the
   beauty of the best Greek models depends too much on their
   vital spirit. Not only was the Roman imagination enriched, but
   the Roman intellect, through literary intercourse with the
   Greek, gradually acquired a flexibility and a plastic power
   which had not been among its original gifts. Through Roman
   literature the Greek influence was transmitted to later times
   in a shape which obscured, indeed, much of its charm, but
   which was also fitted to extend its empire, and to win an
   entrance for it in regions which would have been less
   accessible to a purer form of its manifestation."

      R. C. Jebb,
      The Growth and Influence of Classical Greek Poetry,
      chapter 8.

   "Italy had been subject to the influence of Greece, ever since
   it had a history at all. … But the Hellenism of the Romans
   of the present period [second century B. C.] was, in its
   causes as well as its consequences, something essentially new.
   The Romans began to feel the lack of a richer intellectual
   life, and to be startled as it were at their own utter want of
   mental culture; and, if even nations of artistic gifts, such
   as the English and Germans, have not disdained in the pauses
   of their own productiveness to avail themselves of the paltry
   French culture for filling up the gap, it need excite no
   surprise that the Italian nation now flung itself with eager
   zeal on the glorious treasures as well as on the vile refuse
   of the intellectual development of Hellas. But it was an
   impulse still more profound and deep-rooted which carried the
   Romans irresistibly into the Hellenic vortex. Hellenic
   civilization still assumed that name, but it was Hellenic no
   longer; it was, it fact, humanistic and cosmopolitan. It had
   solved the problem of moulding a mass of different nations
   into one whole completely in the field of intellect, and to a
   certain degree in that of politics, and, now when the same
   task on a wider scale devolved on Rome, she entered on the
   possession of Hellenism along with the rest of the inheritance
   of Alexander the Great. Hellenism therefore was no longer a
   mere stimulus, or subordinate influence; it penetrated the
   Italian nation to the very core. Of course, the vigorous home
   life of Italy strove against the foreign element. It was only
   after a most vehement struggle that the Italian farmer
   abandoned the field to the cosmopolite of the capital; and, as
   in Germany the French coat called forth the national Germanic
   frock, so the reaction against Hellenism aroused in Rome a
   tendency, which opposed the influence of Greece on principle
   in a style to which earlier centuries were altogether
   unaccustomed, and in doing so fell not unfrequently into
   downright follies and absurdities. No department of human
   action or thought remained unaffected by this struggle between
   the new fashion and the old. Even political relations were
   largely influenced by it. The whimsical project of
   emancipating the Hellenes, … the kindred, likewise Hellenic,
   idea of combining republics in a common opposition to kings,
   and the desire of propagating Hellenic polity at the expense
   of eastern despotism—which were the two principles that
   regulated, for instance, the treatment of Macedonia—were
   fixed ideas of the new school, just as dread of the
   Carthaginians was the fixed idea of the old; and, if Cato
   pushed the latter to a ridiculous excess, Philhellenism now
   and then indulged in extravagances at least as foolish. …
   But the real struggle between Hellenism and its national
   antagonists during the present period was carried on in the
   field of faith, of manners, and of art and literature. … If
   Italy still possessed—what had long been a mere antiquarian
   curiosity in Hellas—a national religion, it was already
   visibly beginning to be ossified into theology. The torpor
   creeping over faith is nowhere perhaps so distinctly apparent
   as in the alterations in the economy of divine service and of
   the priesthood. The public service of the gods became not only
   more tedious, but above all more and more costly. … An augur
   like Lucius Paullus, who regarded the priesthood as a science
   and not as a mere title, was already a rare exception; and
   could not but be so, when the government more and more openly
   and unhesitatingly employed the auspices for the
   accomplishment of its political designs, or, in other words,
   treated the national religion in accordance with the view of
   Polybius as a superstition useful for imposing on the public
   at large. Where the way was thus paved, the Hellenistic
   irreligious spirit found free course. In connection with the
   incipient taste for art the sacred images of the gods began
   even in Cato's time to be employed, like other furniture, to
   embellish the chambers of the rich. More dangerous wounds were
   inflicted on religion by the rising literature. … Thus the
   old national religion was visibly on the decline; and, as the
   great trees of the primeval forest were uprooted, the soil
   became covered with a rank growth of thorns and briars and
   with weeds that had never been seen before. Native
   superstitions and foreign impostures of the most various hues
   mingled, competed and conflicted with each other. … The
   Hellenism of that epoch, already denationalized and pervaded
   by Oriental mysticism, introduced not only unbelief but also
   superstition in its most offensive and dangerous forms to
   Italy; and these vagaries, moreover, had a special charm,
   precisely because they were foreign. … Rites of the most
   abominable character came to the knowledge of the Roman
   authorities: a secret nocturnal festival in honour of the god
   Bacchus had been first introduced into Etruria by a Greek
   priest, and spreading like a cancer, had rapidly reached Rome
   and propagated itself over all Italy, everywhere corrupting
   families and giving rise to the most heinous crimes,
   unparalleled unchastity, falsifying of testaments, and
   murdering by poison. More than 7,000 men were sentenced to
   punishment, most of them to death, on this account, and
   rigorous enactments were issued as to the future. … The ties
   of family life became relaxed with fearful rapidity. The evil
   of grisettes and boy-favourites spread like a pestilence. …
   Luxury prevailed more and more in dress, ornaments and
   furniture, in the buildings and on the tables. Especially
   after the expedition to Asia Minor, which took place in 564,
   [B. C. 190] Asiatico-Hellenic luxury, such as prevailed at
   Ephesus and Alexandria, transferred its empty refinement and
   its petty trifling, destructive alike of money, time, and
   pleasure, to Rome. … As a matter of course, this revolution
   in life and manners brought an economic revolution in its
   train. Residence in the capital became more and more coveted
   as well as more costly. Rents rose to an unexampled height.
   Extravagant prices were paid for the new articles of luxury.
   … The influences which stimulated the growth of Roman
   literature were of a character altogether peculiar and hardly
   paralleled in any other nation. … By means of the Italian
   slaves and freedmen, a very large portion of whom were Greek
   or half Greek by birth, the Greek language and Greek knowledge
   to a certain extent reached even the lower ranks of the
   population, especially in the capital. The comedies of this
   period indicate that even the humbler classes of the capital
   were familiar with a sort of Latin, which could no more be
   properly understood without a knowledge of Greek than Sterne's
   English or Wieland's German without a knowledge of French. Men
   of senatorial families, however, not only addressed a Greek
   audience in Greek, but even published their speeches. …
   Under the influence of such circumstances Roman education
   developed itself. It is a mistaken opinion, that antiquity was
   materially inferior to our own times in the general diffusion
   of elementary attainments. Even among the lower classes and
   slaves there was considerable knowledge of reading, writing,
   and counting. … Elementary instruction, as well us
   instruction in Greek, must have been long ere this period
   imparted to a very considerable extent in Rome. But the epoch
   now before us initiated an education, the aim of which was to
   communicate not merely an outward expertness, but a real
   mental culture. The internal decomposition of Italian
   nationality had already, particularly in the aristocracy,
   advanced so far as to render the substitution of a broader
   human culture for that nationality inevitable: and the craving
   after a more advanced civilization was already powerfully
   stirring men's minds. The study of the Greek language as it
   were spontaneously met this craving. The classical literature
   of Greece, the Iliad and still more the Odyssey, had all along
   formed the basis of instruction; the overflowing treasures of
   Hellenic art and science were already by this means spread
   before the eyes of the Italians. Without any outward
   revolution, strictly speaking, in the character of instruction
   the natural result was, that the empirical study of the
   language became converted into a higher study of the
   literature; that the general culture connected with such
   literary studies was communicated in increased measure to the
   scholars; and that these availed themselves of the knowledge
   thus acquired to dive into that Greek literature which most
   powerfully influenced the spirit of the age—the tragedies of
   Euripides and the comedies of Menander. In a similar way
   greater importance came to be attached to the study of Latin.
   The higher society of Rome began to feel the need, if not of
   exchanging their mother-tongue for Greek, at least of refining
   it and adapting it to the changed state of culture. … But a
   Latin culture presupposed a literature, and no such literature
   existed in Rome. … The Romans desired a theatre, but the
   pieces were wanting. On these elements Roman literature was
   based; and its defective character was from the first and
   necessarily the result of such an origin. … Roman poetry in
   particular had its immediate origin not in the inward impulse
   of the poet, but in the outward demands of the school, which
   needed Latin manuals, and of the stage, which needed Latin
   dramas. Now both institutions—the school and the stage—were
   thoroughly anti-Roman and revolutionary. … The school and
   the theatre became the most effective levers in the hands of
   the new spirit of the age, and all the more so that they used
   the Latin tongue.
   Men might perhaps speak and write Greek, and yet not cease to
   be Romans; but in this case they were in the habit of speaking
   in the Roman language, while the whole inward being and life
   were Greek. It is one of the most pleasing, but it is one of
   the most remarkable and in a historical point of view most
   instructive, facts in this brilliant era of Roman
   conservatism, that during its course Hellenism struck root in
   the whole field of intellect not immediately political, and
   that the school-master and the maître de plaisir of the great
   public in close alliance created a Roman literature."

      T. Mommsen,
      The History of Rome,
      book 3, chapter 13 (volume 2).

   Panætius was the founder of "that Roman Stoicism which plays
   so prominent a part in the history of the Empire. He came from
   Rhodes, and was a pupil of Diogenes at Athens. The most
   important part of his life was, however, spent at Rome, in the
   house of Scipio Æmilianus, the centre of the Scipionic circle,
   where he trained up a number of Roman nobles to understand and
   to adopt his views. He seems to have taken the place of
   Polybius, and to have accompanied Scipio in his tour to the
   East (143 B. C.). He died as head of the Stoic school in
   Athens about 110 B. C. This was the man who, under the
   influence of the age, really modified the rigid tenets of his
   sect to make it the practical rule of life for statesmen,
   politicians, magnates, who had no time to sit all day and
   dispute, but who required something better than effete
   polytheism to give them dignity in their leisure, and
   steadfastness in the day of trial. … With the pupils of
   Panætius begins the long roll of Roman Stoics. … Here then,
   after all the dissolute and disintegrating influences of
   Hellenism,—its comœdia palliata, its parasites, its panders,
   its minions, its chicanery, its mendacity—had produced their
   terrible effect, came an antidote which, above all the human
   influences we know, purified and ennobled the world. It
   affected, unfortunately, only the higher classes at Rome; and
   even among them, as among any of the lower classes that
   speculated at all, it had as a dangerous rival that cheap and
   vulgar Epicureanism, which puffs up common natures with the
   belief that their trivial and coarse reflections have some
   philosophic basis, and can be defended with subtle arguments.
   But among the best of the Romans Hellenism produced a type
   seldom excelled in the world's history, a type as superior to
   the old Roman model as the nobleman is to the burgher in most
   countries—a type we see in Rutilius Rufus, as compared with
   the elder Cato. … It was in this way that Hellenistic
   philosophy made itself a home in Italy, and acquired pupils
   who in the next generation became masters in their way, and
   showed in Cicero and Lucretius no mean rivals of the
   contemporary Greek. … Till the poem of Lucretius and the
   works of Cicero, we may say nothing in Latin worth reading
   existed on the subject. Whoever wanted to study philosophy,
   therefore, down to that time (60 B. C.) studied it in Greek.
   Nearly the same thing may be said of the arts of architecture,
   painting, and sculpture. There were indeed distinctly Roman
   features in architecture, but they were mere matters of
   building, and whatever was done in the way of design, in the
   way of adding beauty to strength, was done wholly under the
   advice and direction of Greeks. The subservience to Hellenism
   in the way of internal household ornament was even more
   complete. … And with the ornaments of the house, the proper
   serving of the house, especially the more delicate
   departments—the cooking of state dinners, the attendance upon
   guests, the care of the great man's intimate comforts—could
   only be done fashionably by Greek slaves. … But of course
   these lower sides of Hellenism had no more potent effect in
   civilising Rome than the employing of French cooks and valets
   and the purchase of French ornaments and furniture had in
   improving our grandfathers. Much more serious was the
   acknowledged supremacy of the Greeks in literature of all
   kinds, and still more their insistence that this superiority
   depended mainly upon a careful system of intellectual
   education. … This is the point where Polybius, after his
   seventeen years' experience of Roman life, finds the capital
   flaw in the conduct of public affairs. In every Hellenistic
   state, he says, nothing engrosses the attention of legislators
   more than the question of education, whereas at Rome a most
   moral and serious government leaves the training of the young
   to the mistakes and hazards of private enterprise. That this
   was a grave blunder as regards the lower classes is probably
   true. … But when Rome grew from a city controlling Italy to
   an empire directing the world, such men as Æmilius Paullus saw
   plainly that they must do something more to fit their children
   for the splendid position they had themselves attained, and so
   they were obliged to keep foreign teachers of literature and
   art in their houses as private tutors. The highest class of
   these private tutors was that of the philosophers, whom we
   have considered, and while the State set itself against their
   public establishments, great men in the State openly
   encouraged them and kept them in their houses. … As regards
   literature, however, in the close of the second century B. C.
   a change was visible, which announced the new and marvellous
   results of the first. … Even in letters Roman culture began
   to take its place beside Greek, and the whole civilised world
   was divided into those who knew Greek letters and those who
   knew Roman only. There was no antagonism in spirit between
   them, for the Romans never ceased to venerate Greek letters or
   to prize a knowledge of that language. But of course there
   were great domains in the West beyond the influence of the
   most western Greeks, even of Massilia, where the first higher
   civilisation introduced was with the Roman legions and
   traders, and where culture assumed permanently a Latin form.
   In the East, though the Romans asserted themselves as
   conquerors, they always condescended to use Greek, and there
   were prætors proud to give their decisions at Roman assize
   courts in that language."

      J. P. Mahaffy,
      The Greek World under Roman Sway,
      chapter 5.


      See NAUKRATIS.


   The ancient Greek name of what is now called the straits of
   The Dardanelles, the channel which unites the Sea of Marmora
   with the Ægean. The name (Sea of Helle) came from the myth of
   Helle, who was said to have been drowned in these waters.


      See SIBYLS.






      See LYGIANS.



   Switzerland is sometimes called the Helvetian Republic, for no
   better reason than is found in the fact that the country
   occupied by the Helvetii of Cæsar is embraced in the modern
   Swiss Confederacy. But the original confederation, out of
   which grew the federal republic of Switzerland, did not touch
   Helvetian ground.

      and A. D. 1332-1460.


      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.

HELVETII, The arrested migration of the.

   "The Helvetii, who inhabited a great part of modern
   Switzerland, had grown impatient of the narrow limits in which
   they were crowded together, and harassed at the same time by
   the encroachments of the advancing German tide. The Alps and
   Jura formed barriers to their diffusion on the south and west,
   and the population thus confined outgrew the scanty means of
   support afforded by its mountain valleys. … The Helvetii
   determined to force their way through the country of the
   Allobroges, and to trust either to arms or persuasion to
   obtain a passage through the [Roman] province and across the
   Rhone into the centre of Gaul. … Having completed their
   preparations, [they] appointed the 28th day of March [B. C.
   58] for the meeting of their combined forces at the western
   outlet of the Lake Lemanus. The whole population of the
   assembled tribes amounted to 368,000 souls, including the
   women and children; the number that bore arms was 92,000. They
   cut themselves off from the means of retreat by giving
   ruthlessly to the flames every city and village of their land;
   twelve of one class and four hundred of the other were thus
   sacrificed, and with them all their superfluous stores, their
   furniture, arms and implements." When the news of this
   portentous movement reached Rome, Cæsar, then lately appointed
   to the government of the two Gauls, was raising levies, but
   had no force ready for the field. He flew to the scene in
   person, making the journey from Rome to Geneva in eight days.
   At Geneva, the frontier town of the conquered Allobroges, the
   Romans had a garrison, and Cæsar quickly gathered to that
   point the one legion stationed in the province. Breaking down
   the bridge which had spanned the river and constructing with
   characteristic energy a ditch and rampart from the outlet of
   the lake to the gorge of the Jura, he held the passage of the
   river with his single legion and forced the migratory horde to
   move off by the difficult route down the right bank of the
   Rhone. This accomplished, Cæsar hastened back to Italy, got
   five legions together, led them over the Cottian Alps, crossed
   the Rhone above Lyons, and caught up with the Helvetii before
   the last of their cumbrous train had got beyond the Saone.
   Attacking and cutting to pieces this rear-guard (it was the
   tribe of the Tigurini, which the Romans had encountered
   disastrously half a century before), he bridged the Saone and
   crossed it to pursue the main body of the enemy. For many days
   he followed them, refusing to give battle to the great
   barbarian army until he saw the moment opportune. His blow was
   struck at last in the neighborhood of the city of Bibracte,
   the capital of the Ædui—modern Autun. The defeat of the
   Helvetii was complete, and, although a great body of them
   escaped, they were set upon by the Gauls of the country and
   were soon glad to surrender themselves unconditionally to the
   Roman proconsul. Cæsar compelled them—110,000 survivors, of
   the 368,000 who left Switzerland in the spring—to go back to
   their mountains and rebuild and reoccupy the homes they had

      C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 6 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      Gallic Wars,
      chapters 1-29.

      G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 1.

      Napoleon III.,
      History of Julius Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).


   The Helvii were a tribe of Gauls whose country was between the
   Rhone and the Cevennes, in the modern department of the

      G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 17.


   Defeat of the Danes and Welsh by Ecgbehrt, the West Saxon
   king, A. D. 835.

HENNERSDORF, Battle of (1745).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.





   Latin Emperor at Constantinople (Romania), A. D. 1206-1216.

   Henry (of Corinthia), King of Bohemia, 1307-1310.

   Henry, King of Navarre, 1270-1274.

   Henry, King of Portugal, 1578-1580.

   Henry, Count of Portugal, 1093-1112.

   Henry (called the Lion), The ruin of.

      See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.

   Henry (called the Navigator), Prince, The explorations of.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.

   Henry (called the Proud), The fall of.


   Henry I., King of Castile, 1214-1217.

   Henry I., King of England, 1100-1135.

   Henry I., King of France, 1031-1060.

   Henry I. (called The Fowler), King of the East Franks
   (Germany), 919-936.

   Henry II.,
   Emperor, A. D. 1014-1024;
   King of the East Franks (Germany), 1002-1024;
   King of Italy, 1004-1024.

   Henry II. (of Trastamare),
   King of Castile and Leon, 1369-1379.

   Henry II. (first of the Plantagenets),
   King of England, 1154-1189.

   Henry II., King of France, 1547-1559.

   Henry III., Emperor, King of Germany,
   and King of Burgundy, 1089-1056.

   Henry III., King of Castile and Leon, 1390-1407.

   Henry III., King of England, 1216-1272.

   Henry III.,
   King of France (the last of the Valois), 1574-1589;
   King of Poland, 1573-1574.

   Henry IV.,
   Emperor, 1077-1106;
   King of Germany, 1056-1106.

   Henry IV., King of Castile and Leon, 1454-1474.

   Henry IV., King of England
   (first of the Lancastrian royal line), 1399-1413.

   Henry IV. (called the Great), King of France and Navarre
   (the first of the Bourbon kings), 1589-1610.

         See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.


      See FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1610.

   Henry V.,
   Emperor, 1112-1125;
   King of Germany, 1106-1125.

   Henry V., King of England, 1413-1422.

   Henry VI.,
   King of Germany, 1190-1197;
   Emperor, 1191-1197;
   King of Sicily, 1194-1197.

   Henry VI., King of England, 1422-1461.

   Henry VII. (of Luxemburg),
   King of Germany, 1308-1313;
   King of Italy and Emperor, 1312-1313.

   Henry VII., King of England, 1485-1509.

   Henry VIII., King of England, 1509-1547.

HENRY, Patrick,
   The Parson's cause.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1763.


HENRY, Patrick:
   The American Revolution.

      1775 (APRIL-JUNE), 1778-1779 CLARKE'S CONQUEST;
      also, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776.

   Opposition to the Federal Constitution.

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

HENRY, Fort, Capture of.



   The northern district of Upper Egypt, embracing seven
   provinces, or nomes; whence its name.

HEPTARCHY, The so-called Saxon.

      See ENGLAND: 7th CENTURY.

   The earliest capital of the Venetians.

      See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

HERACLEA, Battle of (B. C. 280).

      See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

   Siege of.

   Heraclea, a flourishing town of Greek origin on the Phrygian
   coast, called Heraclea Pontica to distinguish it from other
   towns of like name, was besieged for some two years by the
   Romans in the Third Mithridatic War. It was surrendered
   through treachery, B. C. 70, and suffered so greatly from the
   ensuing pillage and massacre that it never recovered. The
   Roman commander, Cotta, was afterwards prosecuted at Rome for
   appropriating the plunder of Heraclea, which included a famous
   statue of Hercules, with a golden club.

      G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 3, chapter 5.


   Among the ancient Greeks the reputed descendants of the
   demi-god hero, Herakles, or Hercules, were very numerous.
   "Distinguished families are everywhere to be traced who bear
   his patronymic and glory in the belief that they are his
   descendants. Among Achæans, Kadmeians, and Dorians, Hêraklês
   is venerated: the latter especially treat him as their
   principal hero—the Patron Hero-God of the race: the
   Hêrakleids form among all Dorians a privileged gens, in which
   at Sparta the special lineage of the two kings was included."

      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).

   "The most important, and the most fertile in consequences, of
   all the migrations of Grecian races, and which continued even
   to the latest periods to exert its influence upon the Greek
   character, was the expedition of the Dorians into
   Peloponnesus. … The traditionary name of this expedition is
   'the Return of the Descendants of Hercules' [or 'the Return of
   the Heraclidæ']. Hercules, the son of Zeus, is (even in the
   Iliad), both by birth and destiny, the hereditary prince of
   Tiryns and Mycenæ, and ruler of the surrounding nations. But
   through some evil chance Eurystheus obtained the precedency
   and the son of Zeus was compelled to serve him. Nevertheless
   he is represented as having bequeathed to his descendants his
   claims to the dominion of Peloponnesus, which they afterwards
   made good in conjunction with the Dorians; Hercules having
   also performed such actions in behalf of this race that his
   descendants were always entitled to the possession of
   one-third of the territory. The heroic life of Hercules was
   therefore the mythical title, through which the Dorians were
   made to appear, not as unjustly invading, but merely as
   reconquering, a country which had belonged to their princes in
   former times."

      C. O. Müller,
      History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
      book 1, chapter 3.

      See, also, DORIANS AND IONIANS.


   The second dynasty of the kings of Lydia—so-called by the
   Greeks as reputed descendants of the sun-god. The dynasty is
   represented as ending with Candaules.

      M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 4, chapter 17.

HERACLEONAS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 641.

HERACLIUS I., Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 610-641.

   ----------HERAT: Start--------

HERAT: B. C. 330.
   Founding of the city by Alexander the Great.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.

HERAT: A. D. 1221.
   Destruction by the Mongols.

      See KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

   ----------HERAT: End--------

HERCTÉ, Mount, Hamilcar on.



      See POMPEII.


      See PRÆTORIAN GUARDS: A. D. 312.


   "The Hercynian Forest was known by report to Eratosthenes and
   some other Greeks, under the name Orcynia. The width of this
   forest, as Caesar says (B. G. vi. 25), was nine days' journey
   to a man without any incumbrance. It commenced at the
   territory of the Helvetii [ Switzerland] … and following the
   straight course of the Dunube reached to the country of the
   Daci and the Anartes. Here it turned to the left in different
   directions from the river, and extended to the territory of
   many nations. No man of western Germany could affirm that he
   had reached the eastern termination of the forest even after a
   journey of six days, nor that he had heard where it did
   terminate. This is all that Caesar knew of this great forest.
   … The nine days' journey, which measures the width of the
   Hercynian forest, is the width from south to north; and if we
   assume this width to be estimated at the western end of the
   Hercynia, which part would be the best known, it would
   correspond to the Schwarzwald and Odenwald, which extend on
   the east side of the Rhine from the neighbourhood of Bâle
   nearly as far north as Frankfort on the Main. The eastern
   parts of the forest would extend on the north side of the
   Danube along the Rauhe Alp and the Boehmerwald and still
   farther east. Caesar mentions another German forest named
   Bacenis (B. G. vi. 10), but all that he could say of it is
   this: it was a forest of boundless extent, and it separated
   the Suevi and the Cherusci; from which we may conclude that it
   is represented by the Thüringerwald, Erzgebirge,
   Riesengebirge, and the mountain ranges farther east, which
   separate the basin of the Danube from the basins of the Oder
   and the Vistula."

      G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 2.


      See EALDORMAN.


      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1069-1071.



HERKIMER, General, and the Battle of Oriskany.


HERMÆ AT ATHENS, Mutilation of the.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 415.



   The ancient name of the north-eastern horn of the Gulf of
   Tunis, now called Cape Bon. It was the limit fixed by the old
   treaties between Carthage and Rome, beyond which Roman ships
   must not go.

      R. B. Smith,
      Carthage and the Carthaginians,
      chapter 5.




      See GOTHS: A. D. 350-375; and 376.

   Battle of (1442).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451.

   (Or Schellenberg,) Battle of (1599).

      14TH-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, &c.).


      See SAXONS: A.D. 772-804.






      See ON.


   Among the German tribes of the time of Tacitus, "a people
   loyal to Rome. Consequently they, alone of the Germans, trade
   not merely on the banks of the river, but far inland, and in
   the most flourishing colony of the province of Rætia.
   Everywhere they are allowed to pass without a guard; and while
   to the other tribes we display only our arms and our camps, to
   them we have thrown open our houses and country-seats, which
   they do not covet."

      Minor Works, translated by Church and Brodribb:
      The Germany.

   "The settlements of the Hermunduri must have been in Bavaria,
   and seem to have stretched from Ratisbon, northwards, as far
   as Bohemia and Saxony."

      Minor Works, translated by Church and Brodribb:
      The Germany.
      Geography notes.


   A Sabine tribe, who anciently occupied a valley in the Lower
   Appenines, between the Anio and the Trerus, and who were
   leagued with the Romans and the Latins against the Volscians
   and the Æquians.

      H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 6.


      See JEWS: B. C. 40-A. D. 44.





HERRINGS, The Battle of the (1429).

   In February, 1429, while the English still held their ground
   in France, and while the Duke of Bedford was besieging Orleans
   [see FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431], a large convoy of Lenten
   provisions, salted herring in the main, was sent away from
   Paris for the English army. It was under the escort of Sir
   John Fastolfe, with 1,500 men. At Rouvray en Beausse the
   convoy was attacked by 5,000 French cavalry, including the
   best knights and warriors of the kingdom. The English
   entrenched themselves behind their wagons and repelled the
   attack, with great slaughter and humiliation of the French
   chivalry; but in the mêlée the red-herrings were scattered
   thickly over the field. This caused the encounter to be named
   the Battle of the Herrings.

      C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      2d series, chapter 35.




   The Heruli were a people closely associated with the Goths in
   their history and undoubtedly akin to them in blood. The great
   piratical expedition of A. D. 267 from the Crimea, which
   struck Athens, was made up of Herules as well as Goths. The
   Heruli passed with the Goths under the yoke of the Huns. After
   the breaking up of the empire of Attila, they were found
   occupying the region of modern Hungary which is between the
   Carpathians, the upper Theiss, and the Danube. The Herules
   were numerous among the barbarian auxiliaries of the Roman
   army in the last days of the empire.

      H. Bradley,
      Story of the Goths.

      ALSO IN:
      T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 3, chapter 8 (volume 2).

   ----------HERZEGOVINA: Start--------

HERZEGOVINA: A. D. 1875-1876.
   Revolt against Turkish rule.
   Interposition of the Powers.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877.

   Given over to Austria by the Treaty of Berlin.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

   ----------HERZEGOVINA: End--------

HESSE: A. D. 1866.
   Extinction of the electorate.
   Absorption by Prussia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

HESSIANS, The, in the American War.

      A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).


   The feasting of the tribes at Athens.

      See LITURGIES.


      See MYSTICISM.

HETÆRIES, Ancient.

   Political clubs "which were habitual and notorious at Athens;
   associations, bound together by oath, among the wealthy
   citizens, partly for purposes of amusement, but chiefly
   pledging the members to stand by each other in objects of
   political ambition, in judicial trials, in accusation or
   defence of official men after the period of office had
   expired, in carrying points through the public assembly, &c.
   … They furnished, when taken together, a formidable
   anti-popular force."

      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 62 (volume 7).

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


      See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.


      See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696;
      also, COSSACKS.

HEXHAM, Battle of (1464).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.


   Servian Christians who, in the earlier period of the Turkish
   domination, fled into the forest and became outlaws and
   robbers were called Heyducs.

      L. Ranke,
      History of Servia,
      chapter 3.




      See IRELAND.

HICKS PASHA, Destruction of the army of (1883).

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883.


   "Originally written 'fijodalgo,' son of something. Later
   applied to gentlemen, country gentlemen perhaps more
   particularly. … In the Dic. Univ. authorities are quoted
   showing that the word 'hidalgo' originated with the Roman
   colonists of Spain, called 'Italicos,' who were exempt from
   imposts. Hence those enjoying similar benefits were called
   'Italicos,' which word in lapse of time became 'hidalgo.'"

      H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, page 252, foot-note.





   "In the [Hundred] rolls for Huntingdonshire [England] a series
   of entries occurs, describing, contrary to the usual practice
   of the compilers, the number of acres in a virgate, and the
   number of virgates in a hide, in several manors. … They show
   clearly—(1) That the bundle of scattered strips called a
   virgate did not always contain the same number of acres. (2)
   That the hide did not always contain the same number of
   virgates. But at the same time it is evident that the hide in
   Huntingdonshire most often contained 120 acres or thereabouts.
   … We may gather from the instances given in the Hundred
   Rolls for Huntingdonshire, that the 'normal' hide consisted as
   a rule of four virgates of about thirty acres each. The really
   important consequence resulting from this is the recognition
   of the fact that as the virgate was a bundle of so many
   scattered strips in the open fields, the hide, so far as it
   consisted of actual virgates in villenage, was also a
   bundle—a compound and fourfold bundle—of scattered strips in
   the open fields. … A trace at least of the original reason
   of the varying contents and relations of the hide and virgate
   is to be found in the Hundred Rolls, as, indeed, almost
   everywhere else, in the use of another word in the place of
   hide, when, instead of the anciently assessed hidage of a
   manor, its modern actual taxable value is examined into and
   expressed. This new word is 'carucate'—'the land of a plough
   or plough team,'—'caruca' being the mediæval Latin term for
   both plough and plough team. … In some cases the carucate
   seems to be identical with the normal hide of 120 acres, but
   other instances show that the carucate varied in area. It is
   the land cultivated by a plough team; varying in acreage,
   therefore, according to the lightness or heaviness of the
   soil, and according to the strength of the team. … In
   pastoral districts of England and Wales the Roman tribute may
   possibly have been, if not a hide from each plough team, a
   hide from every family holding cattle. … The supposition of
   such an origin of the connexion of the word 'hide' with the
   'land of a family,' or of a plough team, is mere conjecture;
   but the fact of the connexion is clear."

      F. Seebohm,
      English Village Community,
      chapter 2, section 4,
      and chapter 10, section 6.

      ALSO IN:
      J. M. Kemble,
      The Saxons in England,
      book 1, chapter 4.

      See, also, MANORS.




   In some of the early Greek communities, the Hieroduli, or
   ministers of the gods, "formed a class of persons bound to
   certain services, duties, or contributions to the temple of
   some god, and … sometimes dwelt in the position of serfs on
   the sacred ground. They appear in considerable numbers, and as
   an integral part of the population only in Asia, as, e. g., at
   Comana in Cappadocia, where in Strabo's time there were more
   than 6,000 of them attached to the temple of the goddess Ma,
   who was named by the Greeks Enyo, and by the Romans Bellona.
   In Sicily too the Erycinian Aphrodite had numerous ministers,
   whom Cicero calls Venerii, and classes with the ministers of
   Mars (Martiales) at Larinum in South Italy. In Greece we may
   consider the Craugallidæ as Hieroduli of the Delphian Apollo.
   They belonged apparently to the race of Dryopes, who are said
   to have been at some former time conquered by Heracles, and
   dedicated by him to the god. The greater part of them, we are
   told, were sent at the command of Apollo to the Peloponnese,
   whilst the Craugallidæ remained behind. … At Corinth too
   there were numerous Hieroduli attached to Aphrodite, some of
   whom were women, who lived as Hetæræ and paid a certain tax
   from their earnings to the goddess."

      G. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 2, chapter 4.

      See, also, DORIS AND DRYOPIS.


   "The Greeks gave the name of Hieroglyphics, that is, 'Sacred
   Sculpture,' to the national writing of the Egyptians, composed
   entirely of pictures of natural objects. Although very
   inapplicable, this name has been adopted by modern writers,
   and has been so completely accepted and used that it cannot
   now be replaced by a more appropriate appellation. … For a
   long series of ages the decipherment of the hieroglyphics, for
   which the classical writers furnish no assistance, remained a
   hopeless mystery. The acute genius of a Frenchman at last
   succeeded, not fifty years since, in lifting the veil. By a
   prodigious effort of induction, and almost divination, Jean
   François Champollion, who was born at Figeac (Lot) on the 23d
   of December, 1790, and died at Paris on the 4th of March,
   1832, made the greatest discovery of the nineteenth century in
   the domain of historical science, and succeeded in fixing on a
   solid basis the principle of reading hieroglyphics. Numerous
   scholars have followed the path opened by him. … It would
   … be very far from the truth to regard hieroglyphics as
   always, or even generally, symbolical. No doubt there are
   symbolical characters among them, generally easy to
   understand; as also there are, and in very great number,
   figurative characters directly representing the object to be
   designated; but the majority of the signs found in every
   hieroglyphic text are characters purely phonetic; that is,
   representing either syllables (and these are so varied as to
   offer sometimes serious difficulties) or the letters of an
   only moderately complicated alphabet. These letters are also
   pictures of objects, but of objects or animals whose Egyptian
   name commenced with the letter in question, while also the
   syllabic characters (true rebusses) represented objects
   designated by that syllable."

      F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier.
      Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
      book 3, chapter 5 (volume 1).

   "The system of writing employed by the people called Egyptians
   was probably entirely pictorial either at the time when they
   first arrived in Egypt, or during the time that they still
   lived in their original home. We, however, know of no
   inscription in which pictorial characters alone are used, for
   the earliest specimens of their writing known to us contain
   alphabetical characters. The Egyptians had three kinds of
   writing—Hieroglyphic, Hieratic, and Demotic. …
   Hieroglyphics … were commonly employed for inscriptions upon
   temples, tombs, coffins, statues, and stelæ, and many copies
   of the Book of the Dead were written in them. The earliest
   hieroglyphic inscription at present known is found on the
   monument of Shera, parts of which are preserved in the
   Ashmolean Museum at Oxford and in the Gîzeh Museum; it dates
   from the IInd dynasty. Hieroglyphics were used in Egypt for
   writing the names of Roman Emperors and for religious purposes
   until the third century after Christ, at least.
   Hieratic … was a style of cursive writing much used by the
   priests in copying literary compositions on papyrus; during
   the XIth or XIIth dynasty wooden coffins were inscribed in
   hieratic with religious texts. The oldest document in hieratic
   is the famous Prisse papyrus, which records the counsels of
   Ptah-hetep to his son; the composition itself is about a
   thousand years older than this papyrus, which was probably
   inscribed about the XIth dynasty. Drafts of inscriptions were
   written upon flakes of calcareous stone in hieratic, and at a
   comparatively early date hieratic was used in writing copies
   of the Book of the Dead. Hieratic was used until about the
   fourth century after Christ. Demotic … is a purely
   conventional modification of hieratic characters, which
   preserve little of their original form, and was used for
   social and business purposes; in the early days of Egyptian
   decipherment it was called enchorial. … The Demotic writing
   appears to have come into use about B. C. 900, and it survived
   until about the fourth century after Christ. In the time of
   the Ptolemies three kinds of writing were inscribed side by
   side upon documents of public importance, hieroglyphic, Greek,
   and Demotic; examples are the stele of Canopus, set up in the
   ninth year of the reign of Ptolemy III. Euergetes I., B. C.
   247-222, at Canopus, to record the benefits which this king
   had conferred upon his country, and the famous Rosetta Stone,
   set up at Rosetta in the eighth year of the reign of Ptolemy
   V. Epiphanes (B. C. 205-182), likewise to commemorate the
   benefits conferred upon Egypt by himself and his family, etc.
   … A century or two after the Christian era Greek had
   obtained such a hold upon the inhabitants of Egypt, that the
   native Christian population, the disciples and followers of
   Saint Mark, were obliged to use the Greek alphabet to write
   down the Egyptian, that is to say Coptic, translation of the
   books of the Old and New Testaments, but they borrowed six
   signs from the demotic forms of ancient Egyptian characters to
   express the sounds which they found unrepresented in Greek."

      E. A. Wallis Budge,
      The Mummy,
      pages 353-354.

      See, also, ROSETTA STONE.

HIEROGLYPHICS, Mexican (so-called).



   "A number of solitaries residing among the mountains of Spain,
   Portugal, and Italy, gradually formed into a community, and
   called themselves Hieronymites, either because they had
   compiled their Rule from the writings of St. Jerome, or
   because, adopting the rule of St. Augustine, they had taken
   St. Jerome for their patron. … The community was approved by
   Gregory XI., in 1374. The famous monastery of Our Lady of
   Guadaloupe, in Estremadura; the magnificent Escurial, with its
   wealth of literary treasures, and the monastery of St. Just,
   where Charles V. sought an asylum in the decline of his life,
   attest their wonderful energy and zeal."

      J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      volume 3, page 149.

   First use of the names.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).


      See CURIA REGIS.

HIGH GERMANY, Old League of.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1332-1460.


      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1651-1660.


   William H. Seward, speaking in the Senate of the United
   States, March 11, 1850, on the question of the admission of
   California into the Union as a Free State, used the following
   language: "'The Constitution,' he said, 'regulates our
   stewardship; the Constitution devotes the domain to union, to
   justice, to defence, to welfare, and to liberty. But there is
   a higher law than the Constitution, which regulates our
   authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble
   purposes. The territory is a part, no inconsiderable part, of
   the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the
   Creator of the universe. We are His stewards, and must so
   discharge our trust as to secure in the highest attainable
   degree their happiness.' This public recognition by a Senator
   of the United States that the laws of the Creator were
   'higher' than those of human enactment excited much
   astonishment and indignation, and called forth, in Congress
   and out of it, measureless abuse upon its author."

      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall
      of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 2, pages 262-263.

   In the agitations that followed upon the adoption of the
   Fugitive Slave Law, and the other compromise measures
   attending the admission of California, this Higher Law
   Doctrine was much talked about.


      See CLANS.





HILDEBRAND (Pope Gregory VII.), and the Papacy.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122;
      GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122;
      and CANOSSA.


HILL, Isaac, in the "Kitchen Cabinet" of President Jackson.


HILL, Rowland, and the adoption of penny-postage.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1840.

HILTON HEAD, The capture of.



   An article of dress in the nature of a cloak, worn by both men
   and women among the ancient Greeks. It "was arranged so that
   the one corner was thrown over the left shoulder in front, so
   as to be attached to the body by means of the left arm. On the
   back the dress was pulled toward the right side, so as to
   cover it completely up to the right shoulder, or, at least, to
   the armpit, in which latter case the right shoulder remained
   uncovered. Finally, the himation was again thrown over the
   left shoulder, so that the ends fell over the back. … A
   second way of arranging the himation, which left the right arm
   free, was more picturesque, and is therefore usually found in

      E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 42.

   ----------HIMERA: Start--------

HIMERA, Battle of.

      See SICILY: B. C. 480.

   Destroyed by Hannibal.

      See SICILY: B. C. 409-405.

   ----------HIMERA: End--------


      See ARABIA.

HIN, The.

      See EPHAH.

HINDMAN, Fort, Capture of.

      A. D. 1863 (JANUARY: ARKANSAS).


HINDOO KOOSH, The Name of the.





      See INDIA: THE NAME.

HINKSTON'S FORK, Battle of (1782).

      See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1775-1784.




   A commander of cavalry in the military organization of the
   ancient Athenians.

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


   Among the Spartans, the honorary title of Hippeis, or Knights,
   was given to the members of a chosen body of three hundred
   young men, the flower of the Spartan youth, who had not
   reached thirty years of age. "Their three leaders were called
   Hippagretæ, although in war they served not as cavalry but as
   hoplites. The name may possibly have survived from times in
   which they actually served on horseback." At Athens the term
   Hippeis was applied to the second of the four property classes
   into which Solon divided the population,—their property
   obliging them to serve as cavalry.

      G. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece, The State,
      part 3, chapters 1 and 3.

      See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 594.

HIPPIS, Battle of the,

   Fought, A. D. 550, in what was known as the Lazic War, between
   the Persians on one side and the Romans and the Lazi on the
   other. The latter were the victors.

      G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 20.

   ----------HIPPO: Start--------


   An ancient city of north Africa, on the Numidian coast.


HIPPO: A. D. 430-431.
   Siege by the Vandals.

      See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.

   ----------HIPPO: End--------


   See EUBŒA.


   "The arts practised in the gymnasia were publicly displayed at
   the festivals. The buildings in which these displays took
   place were modified according to their varieties. The races
   both on horseback and in chariots took place in the
   hippodrome; for the gymnastic games of the pentathlon served
   the stadion; while for the acme of the festivals, the musical
   and dramatic performances, theatres were erected."

      E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans
      (translated by Hueffer),
      sections 28-30.




   "The historians of the age of Justinian represent the state of
   the independent Arabs, who were divided by interest or
   affection in the long quarrel of the East [between the Romans
   and Persians—3rd to 7th century]: the tribe of Gassan was
   allowed to encamp on the Syrian territory; the princes of Hira
   were permitted to form a city about 40 miles to the southward
   of the ruins of Babylon. Their service in the field was speedy
   and vigorous; but their friendship was venal, their faith
   inconstant, their enmity capricious: it was an easier task to
   excite than to disarm these roving barbarians; and, in the
   familiar intercourse of war, they learned to see and to
   despise the splendid weakness both of Rome and of Persia."

      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 50 (volume 5).

   "The dynasty of Palmyra and the western tribes embraced
   Christianity in the time of Constantine; to the east of the
   desert the religion was later of gaining ground, and indeed
   was not adopted by the court of Hira till near the end of the
   6th century. Early in the 7th, Hira fell from its dignity as
   an independent power, and became a satrapy of Persia."

      Sir William Muir,
      Life of Mahomet,
      introduction, chapter 1.

   In 633 Hira was overwhelmed by the Mahometan conquest, and the
   greater city of Kufa was built only 3 miles distant from it.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651;
      also, BUSSORAH AND KUFA.


   The name of Seville under the Romans.

      See SEVILLE.


      See SPAIN: B. C. 218-25.


   The name given by Columbus to the island now divided between
   the Republics of Hayti and San Domingo.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1492; 1493-1496, and after;
      and HAYTI.


   The site of ancient Troy, as supposed to be identified by the
   excavations of Dr. Schliemann.

      also, TROJA, and HOMER.

   ----------HISTORY: Start--------


   "With us the word 'history,' like its equivalents in all
   modern languages, signifies either a form of literary
   composition or the appropriate subject or matter of such
   composition—either a narrative of events, or events which
   may be narrated. It is impossible to free the term from this
   doubleness and ambiguity of meaning. Nor is it, on the whole,
   to be desired. The advantages of having one term which may,
   with ordinary caution, be innocuously applied to two things so
   related, more than counterbalances the dangers involved in two
   things so distinct having the same name. … Since the word
   history has two very different meanings, it obviously cannot
   have merely one definition. To define an order of facts and a
   form of literature in the same terms—to suppose that when
   either of them is defined the other is defined—is so absurd
   that one would probably not believe it could be seriously done
   were it not so often done. But to do so has been the rule
   rather than the exception. The majority of so-called
   definitions of history are definitions only of the records of
   history. They relate to history as narrated and written, not
   to history as evolved and acted; in other words, although
   given as the only definitions of history needed, they do not
   apply to history itself, but merely to accounts of history.
   They may tell us what constitutes a book of history, but they
   cannot tell us what the history is with which all books of
   history are occupied. It is, however, with history in this
   latter sense that a student of the science or philosophy of
   history is mainly concerned. … If by history be meant
   history in its widest sense, the best definition of history as
   a form of literature is, perhaps, either the very old one,
   'the narration of events,' or W. von Humboldt's, 'the
   exhibition of what has happened' (die Darstellung des
   The excellence of these definitions lies in their clear and
   explicit indication of what history as effectuated or
   transacted is. It consists of events; it is das Geschehene. It
   is the entire course of events in time. It is all that has
   happened precisely as it happened. Whatever happens is
   history. Eternal and unchanging being has no history. Things
   or phenomena considered as existent, connected, and
   comprehended in space, compose what is called nature as
   distinguished from history. … Probably Droysen has found a
   neater and terser formula for it in German than any which the
   English language could supply. Nature he describes as 'das
   Nebeneinander des Seienden,' and history as 'das Nacheinander
   des Gewordenen.' … The only kind of history with which we
   have here directly to deal is that kind of it to which the
   name is generally restricted, history par excellence, human
   history, what has happened within the sphere of human agency
   and interests, the actions and creations of men, events which
   have affected the lives and destinies of men, or which have
   been produced by men. This is the ordinary sense of the word
   history. … To attempt further to define it would be worse
   than useless. It would be unduly to limit, and to distort and
   pervert, its meaning. In proof of this a few brief remarks on
   certain typical or celebrated definitions of history may
   perhaps be of service. The definition given in the Dictionary
   of the French Academy—'l'histoire est le récit des choses
   dignes de mémoire' [Transcriber: "the story of things worth
   remembering"]—is a specimen of a very numerous species.
   According to such definitions history consists of exceptional
   things, of celebrated or notorious events, of the lives and
   actions of great and exalted men, of conspicuous achievements
   in war and politics, in science and art, in religion and
   literature. But this is a narrow and superficial conception of
   history. History is made up of what is little as well as of
   what is great, of what is common as well as of what is
   strange, of what is counted mean as well as of what is counted
   noble. … Dr. Arnold's definition—'history is the biography
   of a society'—has been often praised. Nor altogether
   undeservedly. For it directs attention to the fact that all
   history accords with biography in supposing in its subject a
   certain unity of life, work, and end. … It does not follow,
   however, that biography is a more general notion than history,
   and history only a species of biography. In fact, it is not
   only as true and intelligible to say that biography is the
   history of an individual as to say that history is the
   biography of a society, but more so. It is the word biography
   in the latter case which is used in a secondary and analogical
   sense, not the word history in the former case. … According
   to Mr. Freeman, 'history is past politics and politics are
   present history.' This is not a mode of definition which any
   logician will be found to sanction. It is equivalent to saying
   that politics and history are the same, and may both be
   divided into past and present; but it does not tell us what
   either is. To affirm that this was that and that is this is
   not a definition of this or that, but only an assertion that
   something may be called either this or that. Besides, the
   identification of history with politics proceeds, as has been
   already indicated, on a view of history which is at once
   narrow and arbitrary. Further, it is just as true that
   mathematical history is past mathematics and mathematics are
   present history, as that political history is past politics
   and politics are present history. … The whole of man's past
   was once present thought, feeling, and action. There is
   nothing peculiar to politics in this respect."

      R. Flint,
      History of the Philosophy of History: France, etc.,
      pages 5-10.

   The subjects and objects of History.

   "The position for which I have always striven is this, that
   history is past politics, that politics are present history.
   The true subject of history, of any history that deserves the
   name, is man in his political capacity, man as the member of
   an organized society, governed according to law. History, in
   any other aspect, hardly rises above antiquarianism, though I
   am far from holding that even simple antiquarianism, even the
   merest scraping together of local and genealogical detail, is
   necessarily antiquarian rubbish. I know not why the pursuits
   of the antiquary should be called rubbish, any more than the
   pursuits of the seeker after knowledge of any other kind.
   Still, the pursuits of the antiquary, the man of local and
   special detail, the man of buildings or coins or weapons or
   manuscripts, are not in themselves history, though they are
   constantly found to be most valuable helps to history. The
   collections of the antiquary are not history; but they are
   materials for history, materials of which the historian makes
   grateful use, and without which he would often be sore put to
   in doing his own work. … It is not too much to say that no
   kind of knowledge, of whatever kind, will be useless to the
   historian. There is none, however seemingly distant from his
   subject, which may not stand him in good stead at some pinch,
   sooner or later. But his immediate subject, that to which all
   other things are secondary, is man as the member of a
   political community. Rightly to understand man in that
   character, he must study him in all the forms, in all the
   developments, that political society has taken. Effects have
   to be traced up to their causes, causes have to be traced up
   to their effects; and we cannot go through either of those
   needful processes if we confine our studies either to the
   political societies of our own day or to political societies
   on a great physical scale. The object of history is to watch
   the workings of one side, and that the highest side, of human
   nature in all its shapes; and we do not see human nature in
   all its shapes, unless we follow it into all times and all
   circumstances under which we have any means of studying it.
   … In one sense it is perfectly true that history is always
   repeating itself; in another sense it would be equally true to
   say that history never repeats itself at all. No historical
   position can be exactly the same as any earlier historical
   position, if only for the reason that the earlier position has
   gone before it. … Even where the reproduction is
   unconscious, where the likeness is simply the result of the
   working of like causes, still the two results can never be
   exactly the same, if only because the earlier result itself
   takes its place among the causes of the later result.
   Differences of this kind must always be borne in mind, and
   they are quite enough to hinder any two historical events from
   being exact doubles of one another. … We must carefully
   distinguish between causes and occasions. It is one of the
   oldest and one of the wisest remarks of political philosophy
   that great events commonly arise from great causes, but from
   small occasions.
   A certain turn of mind, one which is more concerned with
   gossip, old or new, than with real history, delights in
   telling us how the greatest events spring from the smallest
   causes, how the fates of nations and empires are determined by
   some sheer accident, or by the personal caprice or personal
   quarrel of some perhaps very insignificant person. A good deal
   of court-gossip, a good deal of political gossip, passes both
   in past and present times for real history. Now a great deal
   of this gossip is sheer gossip, and may be cast aside without
   notice; but a good deal of it often does contain truth of a
   certain kind. Only bear in mind the difference between causes
   and occasions, and we may accept a good many of the stories
   which tell us how very trifling incidents led to very great
   events. … When I speak of causes and occasions, when I speak
   of small personal caprices and quarrels, as being not the
   causes of great events, but merely the occasions, I wish it to
   be fully understood that I do not at all place the agency of
   really great men among mere occasions: I fully give it its
   place among determining causes. In any large view of history,
   we must always be on our guard against either underrating or
   overrating the actions of individual men. History is something
   more than biography; but biography is an essential and a most
   important part of history. We must not think, on the one hand,
   that great men, heroes, or whatever we please to call them,
   can direct the course of history according to their own will
   and pleasure, perhaps according to their mere caprice, with no
   danger of their will being thwarted, unless it should run
   counter to the will of some other great man or hero of equal
   or greater power. … On the other hand, we must not deem that
   the course of history is so governed by general laws, that it
   is so completely in bondage to almost mechanical powers, that
   there is no room for the free agency of great men and of small
   men too. For it is of no little importance that, while we talk
   of the influence of great men on the history of the world, we
   should not forget the influence of the small men. Every man
   has some influence on the course of history."

      E. A. Freeman,
      The Practical Bearings of European History
      (Lectures to American Audiences),
      pages 207-215.

   The Philosophy of History

   "The philosophy of history is not a something separate from
   the facts of history, but a something contained in them. The
   more a man gets into the meaning of them, the more he gets
   into it, and it into him; for it is simply the meaning, the
   rational interpretation, the knowledge of the true nature and
   essential relations of the facts. And this is true of whatever
   species or order the facts may be. Their philosophy is not
   something separate and distinct from, something over and
   above, their interpretation, but simply their interpretation.
   He who knows about any people, or epoch, or special
   development of human nature, how it has come to be what it is
   and what it tends to, what causes have given it the character
   it has, and what its relation is to the general development of
   humanity, has attained to the philosophy of the history of
   that people, epoch, or development. Philosophical history is
   sometimes spoken of as a kind of history, but the language is
   most inaccurate. Every kind of history is philosophical which
   is true and thorough; which goes closely and deeply enough to
   work; which shows the what, how, and why of events as far as
   reason and research can ascertain. History always participates
   in some measure of philosophy, for events are always connected
   according to some real or supposed principle either of
   efficient or final causation."

      R. Flint,
      Philosophy of History,

   The possibility of a Science of History.
   Mr. Buckle's theory.

   "The believer in the possibility of a science of history is
   not called upon to hold either the doctrine of predestined
   events, or that of freedom of the will; and the only positions
   which, in this stage of the inquiry, I shall expect him to
   concede are the following: That when we perform an action, we
   perform it in consequence of some motive or motives; that
   those motives are the results of some antecedents; and that,
   therefore, if we were acquainted with the whole of the
   antecedents, and with all the laws of their movements, we
   could with unerring certainty predict the whole of their
   immediate results. This, unless I am greatly mistaken, is the
   view which must be held by every man whose mind is unbiased by
   system, and who forms his opinions according to the evidence
   actually before him. … Rejecting, then, the metaphysical
   dogma of free will and, the theological dogma of predestined
   events, we are driven to the conclusion that the actions of
   men, being determined solely by their antecedents, must have a
   character of uniformity, that is to say, must, under precisely
   the same circumstances, always issue in precisely the same
   results. And as all antecedents are either in the mind or out
   of it, we clearly see that all the variations in the
   results—in other words, all the changes of which history is
   full, all the vicissitudes of the human race, their progress
   or their decay, their happiness or their misery—must be the
   fruit of a double action; an action of external phenomena upon
   the mind, and another action of the mind upon the phenomena.
   These are the materials out of which a philosophic history can
   alone be constructed. On the one hand, we have the human mind
   obeying the laws of its own existence, and, when uncontrolled
   by external agents, developing itself according to the
   conditions of its organization. On the other hand, we have
   what is called Nature, obeying likewise its laws; but
   incessantly coming into contact with the minds of men,
   exciting their passions, stimulating their intellect, and
   therefore giving to their actions a direction which they would
   not have taken without such disturbance. Thus we have man
   modifying nature, and nature modifying man; while out of this
   reciprocal modification all events must necessarily spring.
   The problem immediately before us is to ascertain the method
   of discovering the laws of this double modification."

      H. T. Buckle,
      History of Civilization in England,
      chapter 1.

   "Buckle is not the first who has attempted to treat the
   unscientific character of History, the 'methodless matter,' as
   an ancient writer names it, by the method of exhibiting vital
   phenomena under points of view analogous to those which are
   the starting-point of the exact sciences. But a notion which
   others have incidentally broached under some formula about
   'natural growth,' or carried out in the very inadequate and
   merely figurative idea of 'the inorganic; what still others,
   as Comte in his attractive 'Philosophie Positive,' have
   developed speculatively, Buckle undertakes to ground in a
   comprehensive historical exposition. …
   He purposes to raise History to a science by showing how to
   demonstrate historical facts out of general laws. He paves the
   way for this by setting forth that the earliest and rudest
   conceptions touching the course of human destiny were those
   indicated by the ideas of chance and necessity, that in all
   probability' out of these grew later the 'dogmas' of free-will
   and predestination, that both are in a great degree
   'mistakes,' or that, as he adds, 'we at least have no adequate
   proof of their truth.' He finds that all the changes of which
   History is full, all the vicissitudes which have come upon the
   human race, its advance and its decline, its happiness and its
   misery, must be the fruit, of a double agency, the working of
   outer phenomena upon our nature, and the working of our nature
   upon outer phenomena. He has confidence that he has discovered
   the 'laws' of this double influence, and that he has therefore
   elevated the History of mankind to a science. … Buckle does
   not so much leave the freedom of the will, in connection with
   divine providence, out of view, but rather declares it an
   illusion and throws it overboard. Within the precincts of
   philosophy also something similar has recently been taught. A
   thinker whom I regard with personal esteem says: 'If we call
   all that an individual man is, has and performs A, then this A
   arises out of a + x, a embracing all that comes to the
   man from his outer circumstances: from his country, people,
   age, etc., while the vanishingly little x is his own
   contribution, the work of his free will.' However vanishingly
   small this x may be, it is of infinite value. Morally
   and humanly considered it alone has value. The colors, the
   brush, the canvas which Raphael used were of materials which
   he had not created. He had learned from one and another master
   to apply these materials in drawing and painting. The idea of
   the Holy Virgin and of the saints and angels, he met with in
   church tradition. Various cloisters ordered pictures from him
   at given prices. That this incitement alone, these material
   and technical conditions and such traditions and
   contemplations, should 'explain' the Sistine Madonna, would
   be, in the formula A = a + x, the service of the
   vanishing little x. Similarly everywhere. Let
   statistics go on showing that in a certain country so and so
   many illegitimate births occur. Suppose that in the formula A
   = a + x this a includes all the elements which
   'explain' the fact that among a thousand mothers twenty,
   thirty, or whatever the number is, are unmarried; each
   individual case of the kind has its history, how often a
   touching and affecting one. Of those twenty or thirty who have
   fallen is there a single one who will be consoled by knowing
   that the statistical law 'explains' her case? Amid the
   tortures of conscience through nights of weeping, many a one
   of them will be profoundly convinced that in the formula A =
   a + x the vanishing little x is of immeasurable
   weight, that in fact it embraces the entire moral worth of the
   human being, his total and exclusive value. No intelligent man
   will think of denying that the statistical method of
   considering human affairs has its great worth; but we must not
   forget how little, relatively, it can accomplish and is meant
   to accomplish: Many and perhaps all human relations have a
   legal side; yet no one will on that account bid us seek for
   the understanding of the Eroica or of Faust among jurists'
   definitions concerning intellectual property."

      J. G. Droysen,
      Outline of the Principles of History
      pages 62-64 and 77-79.

   History as the root of all Science.
   Lost History.

   "History, as it lies at the root of all science, is also the
   first distinct product of man's spiritual nature; his earliest
   expression of what can be called Thought. It is a looking both
   before and after; as, indeed, the coming Time already waits,
   unseen, yet definitely shaped, predetermined and inevitable,
   in the Time come; and only by the combination of both is the
   meaning of either completed. The Sibylline Books, though old,
   are not the oldest. Some nations have prophecy, some have not:
   but of all mankind, there is no tribe so rude that it has not
   attempted History, though several have not arithmetic enough
   to count Five. History has been written with quipo-threads,
   with feather-pictures, with wampum-belts; still oftener with
   earth-mounds and monumental stone-heaps, whether as pyramid or
   cairn; for the Celt and the Copt, the Red man as well as the
   White, lives between two eternities, and warring against
   Oblivion, he would fain unite himself in clear conscious
   relation, as in dim unconscious relation he is already united,
   with the whole Future and the whole Past. A talent for History
   may be said to be born with us, as our chief inheritance. In a
   certain sense all men are historians. Is not every memory
   written quite full with Annals, wherein joy and mourning,
   conquest and loss manifoldly alternate; and, with or without
   philosophy, the whole fortunes of one little inward Kingdom,
   and all its politics, foreign and domestic, stand ineffaceably
   recorded? Our very speech is curiously historical. Most men,
   you may observe, speak only to narrate; not in imparting what
   they have thought, which indeed were often a very small
   matter, but in exhibiting what they have undergone or seen,
   which is a quite unlimited one, do talkers dilate. Cut us off
   from Narrative, how would the stream of conversation, even
   among the wisest, languish into detached handfuls, and among
   the foolish utterly evaporate! Thus, as we do nothing but
   enact History, we say little but recite it: nay rather, in
   that widest sense, our whole spiritual life is built thereon.
   For, strictly considered, what is all Knowledge too but
   recorded Experience, and a product of History; of which;
   therefore, Reasoning and Belief, no less than Action and
   Passion, are essential materials? … Social Life is the
   aggregate of all the individual men's Lives who constitute
   society; History is the essence of innumerable Biographies.
   But if one Biography, nay our own Biography, study and
   recapitulate it as we may, remains in so many points
   unintelligible to us; how much more must these million, the
   very facts of which, to say nothing of the purport of them, we
   know not, and cannot know! … Which was the greatest
   innovator, which was the more important personage in man's
   history, he who first led armies over the Alps, and gained the
   victories of Cannæ and Thrasymene; or the nameless boor who
   first hammered out for himself an iron spade? When the oak
   tree is felled, the whole forest echoes with it; but a hundred
   acorns are planted silently by some unnoticed breeze.
   Battles and war-tumults, which for the time din every ear, and
   with joy or terror intoxicate every heart, pass away like
   tavern-brawls; and, except some few Marathons and Morgartens,
   are remembered by accident, not by desert. Laws themselves,
   political Constitutions, are not our Life, but only the house
   wherein our Life is led: nay they are but the bare walls of
   the house; all whose essential furniture, the inventions and
   traditions, and daily habits that regulate and support our
   existence, are the work not of Dracos and Hampdens, but of
   Phœnician mariners, of Italian masons and Saxon metallurgists,
   of philosophers, alchymists, prophets, and all the
   long-forgotten train of artists and artisans; who from the
   first have been jointly teaching us how to think and how to
   act, how to rule over spiritual and over physical Nature. Well
   may we say that of our History the more important part is lost
   without recovery."

      T. Carlyle,
      On History
      (Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 2).

   Interpretation of the Past by the Present.

   "But how, it may be asked, are we to interpret the Past from
   the Present, if there are no institutions in the present
   answering to those in the past? We have no serfs, for example,
   in England at the present time, how then are we to understand
   a state of Society of which they were a component element? The
   answer is—by analogy, by looking at the essence of the
   relation. Between a modern master and his lackeys and
   dependents, the same essential relation subsists as between
   the lord and serf of feudal times. If we realise to ourselves
   the full round of this relationship, deepen the shades to
   correspond with the more absolute power possessed by a lord in
   early times, allow for a more aristocratic state of opinion
   and belief, the result will be the solution desired. This
   method of interpreting the Past from the Present has been
   followed by Shakespeare in his great historical dramas, with
   such success as we all know. He wishes, for example, to give
   us a picture of old Roman times. He gets from Plutarch and
   other sources the broad historical facts, the form of
   Government and Religion, the distribution of Power and
   Authority: this is the skeleton to which he has to give life
   and reality. How does he proceed? He simply takes his stand on
   the times in which he himself lived; notes the effects
   existing institutions have on his own and other minds; allows
   for the differences in custom, mode of life, and political and
   religious forms; and the result is a drama or dramas more real
   and lifelike, more true and believable, an insight into the
   working of Roman life more subtle and profound, than all the
   husks with which the historians have furnished us."

      J. B. Crozier,
      Civilization and Progress,
      page 35.

   The Moral lessons of History.

   "Gibbon believed that the era of conquerors was at an end. Had
   he lived out the full life of man, he would have seen Europe
   at the feet of Napoleon. But a few years ago we believed the
   world had grown too civilized for war, and the Crystal Palace
   in Hyde Park was to be the inauguration of a new era. Battles
   bloody as Napoleon's are now the familiar tale of every day;
   and the arts which have made greatest progress are the arts of
   destruction. … What, then, is the use of History, and what
   are its lessons? If it can tell us little of the past, and
   nothing of the future, why waste our time over so barren a
   study? First, it is a voice forever sounding across the
   centuries the laws of right and wrong. Opinions alter, manners
   change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral law is written on
   the tablets of eternity. For every false word or unrighteous
   deed, for cruelty and oppression, for lust or vanity, the
   price has to be paid at last; not always by the chief
   offenders, but paid by some one. Justice and truth alone
   endure and live. Injustice and falsehood may be long-lived,
   but doomsday comes at last to them, in French revolutions and
   other terrible ways. That is one lesson of History. Another is
   that we should draw no horoscopes; that we should expect
   little, for what we expect will not come to pass."

      J. A. Froude,
      Short Studies on Great Subjects,
      pages 27-28.

   The Educational and Practical value of History.

   "It is, I think, one of the best schools for that kind of
   reasoning which is most useful in practical life. It teaches
   men to weigh conflicting probabilities, to estimate degrees of
   evidence, to form a sound judgment of the value of
   authorities. Reasoning is taught by actual practice much more
   than by any a priori methods. Many good judges—and I own I am
   inclined to agree with them—doubt much whether a study of
   formal logic ever yet made a good reasoner. Mathematics are no
   doubt invaluable in this respect, but they only deal with
   demonstrations; and it has often been observed how many
   excellent mathematicians are somewhat peculiarly destitute of
   the power of measuring degrees of probability. But History is
   largely concerned with the kind of probabilities on which the
   conduct of life mainly, depends. There is one hint about
   historical reasoning which I think may not be unworthy of your
   notice. When studying some great historical controversy, place
   yourself by an effort of the imagination alternately on each
   side of the battle; try to realise as fully as you can the
   point of view of the best men on either side, and then draw up
   upon paper the arguments of each in the strongest form you can
   give them. You will find that few practices do more to
   elucidate the past, or form a better mental discipline."

      W. E. H. Lecky,
      The Political Value of History,
      pages 47-49.

   "He who demands certainties alone as the sphere of his action
   must retire from the activities of life, and confine himself
   to the domain of mathematical computation. He who is unwilling
   to investigate and weigh probabilities can have no good reason
   to hope for any practical success whatever. It is strictly
   accurate to say that the highest successes in life, whether in
   statesmanship, in legislation, in war, in the civic
   professions, or in the industrial pursuits, are attained by
   those who possess the greatest skill in the weighing of
   probabilities and the estimating of them at their true value.
   This is the essential reason why the study of history is so
   important an element in the work of improving the judgment,
   and in the work of fitting men to conduct properly the larger
   interests of communities and states. It is a study of
   humanity, not in an ideal condition, but as humanity exists.
   The student of history surveys the relations of life in
   essentially the same manner as the man of business surveys
   them. Perhaps it ought rather to be said that the historical
   method is the method that must be used in the common affairs
   of everyday life.
   The premises from which the man of business has to draw his
   conclusions are always more or less involved and uncertain.
   The gift which insures success, therefore, is not so much the
   endowment of a powerful reasoning faculty as that other
   quality of intelligence, which we call good judgment. It is
   the ability to grasp what may be called the strategic points
   of a situation by instinctive or intuitive methods. It reaches
   its conclusions not by any very clearly defined or definable
   process, but rather by the method of conjecturing the value
   and importance of contingent elements. It is the ability to
   reach correct conclusions when the conditions of a strictly
   logical process are wanting. To a man of affairs this is the
   most valuable of all gifts; and it is acquired, so far as it
   comes by effort, not by studying the rigid processes of
   necessary reasoning, but by a large observance and
   contemplation of human affairs. And it is precisely this
   method of studying men that the historical student has to use.
   His premises are always more or less uncertain, and his
   conclusions, therefore, like the conclusions of every day
   life, are the product of his judgment rather than the product
   of pure reason. It is in the light of this fact that we are to
   explain the force of Guizot's remark, that nothing tortures
   history more than logic. Herein also is found the reason why
   the study of history is so necessary a part of a good
   preparation for the affairs of politics and statesmanship.
   Freeman has said that history is simply past politics, and
   politics are simply present history. If this be true—and who
   can deny it?—the study of history and the study of politics
   are much the same. The kind of involved and contingent
   reasoning necessary for the successful formation of political
   judgments is unquestionably the kind of reasoning which, of
   all studies, history is best adapted to give. It may also be
   said that the most important elements of success are the same
   in all practical vocations. The conditions, whether those of
   statesmanship or those of industry and commerce, have been
   essentially the same in all ages. Society is, and has been,
   from its first existence, a more or less complicated organism.
   It is a machine with a great number of wheels and springs. No
   part is independent. Hence it is that no man can be completely
   useful if he is out of gear with his age, however perfect he may
   be in himself."

      C. K. Adams,
      A Manual of Historical Literature,
      pp. 15-16.

   "To turn for a moment to the general question. I should not
   like to be thought to be advocating my study on the mere
   grounds of utility; although I believe that utility, both as
   regards the training of the study and the information attained
   in it, to be the highest, humanly speaking, of all utilities;
   it helps to qualify a man to act in his character of a
   politician as a Christian man should. But this is not all;
   beyond the educational purpose, beyond the political purpose,
   beyond the philosophical use of history and its training, it
   has something of the preciousness of everything that is
   clearly true. In common with Natural Philosophy it has its
   value, I will not say as Science, for that would be to use a
   term which has now become equivocal, but it has a value
   analogous to the value of science; a value as something that
   is worth knowing and retaining in the knowledge for its own
   and for the truth's sake. And in this consists its especial
   attraction for its own votaries. It is not the pleasure of
   knowing something that the world does not know,—that
   doubtless is a motive that weighs with many minds, a motive to
   be accepted as a fact, though it may not be worth analysis. It
   is not the mere pleasure of investigating and finding with
   every step of investigation new points of view open out, and
   new fields of labour, new characters of interest;—that
   investigating instinct of human nature is not one to be
   ignored, and the exercise of it on such inexhaustible
   materials as are before us now is a most healthy exercise, one
   that cannot but strengthen and develop the whole mind of the
   man who uses it, urging him on to new studies, new languages,
   new discoveries in geography and science. But even this is not
   all. There is, I speak humbly, in common with Natural Science,
   in the study of living History, a gradual approximation to a
   consciousness that we are growing into a perception of the
   workings of the Almighty Ruler of the world. … The study of
   History is in this respect, as Coleridge said of Poetry, its
   own great reward, a thing to be loved and cultivated for its
   own sake. … If man is not, as we believe, the greatest and
   most wonderful of God's works, he is at least the most
   wonderful that comes within our contemplation; if the human
   will, which is the motive cause of all historical events, is
   not the freest agent in the universe, it is at least the
   freest agency of which we have any knowledge; if its
   variations are not absolutely innumerable and irreducible to
   classification, on the generalisations of which we may
   formulate laws and rules, and maxims and prophecies, they are
   far more diversified and less reducible than any other
   phenomena in those regions of the universe that we have power
   to penetrate. For one great insoluble problem of astronomy or
   geology there are a thousand insoluble problems in the life,
   in the character, in the face of every man that meets you in
   the street. Thus, whether we look at the dignity of the
   subject-matter, or at the nature of the mental exercise which
   it requires, or at the inexhaustible field over which the
   pursuit ranges, History, the knowledge of the adventures, the
   development, the changeful career, the varied growths, the
   ambitions, aspirations, and, if you like, the approximating
   destinies of mankind, claims a place second to none in the
   roll of sciences."

      W. Stubbs,
      Seventeen Lectures on the Study of
      Medieval and Modern History,
      lectures 1 and 4.

   "There is a passage in Lord Bacon so much to this purpose that
   I cannot forbear quoting it. 'Although' (he says) 'we are
   deeply indebted to the light, because by means of it we can
   find our way, ply our tasks, read, distinguish one another;
   and yet for all that the vision of the light itself is more
   excellent and more beautiful than all these various uses of
   it; so the contemplation and sight of things as they are,
   without superstition, without imposture, without error, and
   without confusion, is in itself worth more than all the
   harvest and profit of inventions put together.' And so may I
   say of History; that useful as it may be to the statesman, to
   the lawyer, to the schoolmaster, or the annalist, so far as it
   enables us to look at facts as they are, and to cultivate that
   habit within us, the importance of History is far beyond all
   mere amusement or even information that we may gather from

      J. S. Brewer,
      English Studies,
      page 382.


   "To know History is impossible; not even Mr. Freeman, not
   Professor Ranke himself, can be said to know History. … No
   one, therefore, should be discouraged from studying History.
   Its greatest service is not so much to increase our knowledge
   as to stimulate thought and broaden our intellectual horizon,
   and for this purpose no study is its equal."

      W. P. Atkinson,
      On History and the Study of History,
      page 107.

   The Writing of History.
   Macaulay's view.

   "A history in which every particular incident may be true may
   on the whole be false. The circumstances which have most
   influence on the happiness of mankind, the changes of manners
   and morals, the transition of communities from poverty to
   wealth, from knowledge to ignorance, from ferocity to
   humanity—these are, for the most part, noiseless revolutions.
   Their progress is rarely indicated by what historians are
   pleased to call important events. They are not achieved by
   armies, or enacted by senates. They are sanctioned by no
   treaties and recorded in no archives. They are carried on in
   every school, in every church, behind ten thousand counters,
   at ten thousand firesides. The upper current of society
   presents no certain criterion by which we can judge of the
   direction in which the under current flows. We read of defeats
   and victories. But we know that nations may be miserable
   amidst victories and prosperous amidst defeats. We read of the
   fall of wise ministers and of the rise of profligate
   favourites. But we must remember how small a proportion the
   good or evil effected by a single statesman can bear to the
   good or evil of a great social system. … The effect of
   historical reading is analogous, in many respects, to that
   produced by foreign travel. The student, like the tourist, is
   transported into a new state of society. He sees new fashions.
   He hears new modes of expression. His mind is enlarged by
   contemplating the wide diversities of laws, of morals, and of
   manners. But men may travel far and return with minds as
   contracted as if they had never stirred from their own
   market-town. In the same manner, men may know the dates of
   many battles and the genealogies of many royal houses, and yet
   be no wiser. … The perfect historian is he in whose work the
   character and spirit of an age is exhibited in miniature. He
   relates no fact, he attributes no expression to his
   characters, which is not authenticated by sufficient
   testimony. But, by judicious selection, rejection, and
   arrangement, he gives to truth those attractions which have
   been usurped by fiction. In his narrative a due subordination
   is observed: some transactions are prominent; others retire.
   But the scale on which he represents them is increased or
   diminished, not according to the dignity of the persons
   concerned in them, but according to the degree in which they
   elucidate the condition of society and the nature of man. He
   shows us the court, the camp, and the senate. But he shows us
   also the nation. He considers no anecdote, no peculiarity of
   manner, no familiar saying, as too insignificant for his
   notice which is not too insignificant to illustrate the
   operation of laws, of religion, and of education, and to mark
   the progress of the human mind. Men will not merely be
   described, but will be made intimately known to us."

      Lord Macaulay,
      (Essays, volume 1).

   The Writing of History.
   Truthfulness in Style.

   "That man reads history, or anything else, at great peril of
   being thoroughly misled, who has no perception of any
   truthfulness except that which can be fully ascertained by
   reference to facts; who does not in the least perceive the
   truth, or the reverse, of a writer's style, of his epithets,
   of his reasoning, of his mode of narration. In life our faith
   in any narration is much influenced by the personal
   appearance, voice, and gesture of the person narrating. There
   is some part of all these things in his writing; and you must
   look into that well before you can know what faith to give
   him. One man may make mistakes in names, and dates, and
   references, and yet have a real substance of truthfulness in
   him, a wish to enlighten himself and then you. Another may not
   be wrong in his facts, but have a declamatory, or sophistical,
   vein in him, much to be guarded against. A third may be both
   inaccurate and untruthful, caring not so much for any thing as
   to write his book. And if the reader cares only to read it,
   sad work they make between them of the memories of former

      Sir A. Helps,
      Friends in Council,
      volume 1, pages 199-200.

   Historical Romance and Romantic History.
   Sir Walter Scott.

   "The prodigious addition which the happy idea of the
   historical romance has made to the stories of elevated
   literature, and through it to the happiness and improvement of
   the human race, will not be properly appreciated, unless the
   novels most in vogue before the immortal creations of Scott
   appeared are considered. … Why is it that works so popular
   in their day, and abounding with so many traits of real
   genius, should so soon have palled upon the world? Simply
   because they were not founded upon a broad and general view of
   human nature; because they were drawn, not from real life in
   the innumerable phases which it presents to the observer, but
   imaginary life as it was conceived in the mind of the
   composer; because they were confined to one circle and class
   of society, and having exhausted all the natural ideas which
   it could present, its authors were driven, in the search of
   variety, to the invention of artificial and often ridiculous
   ones. Sir Walter Scott, as all the world knows, was the
   inventor of the historical romance. As if to demonstrate how
   ill founded was the opinion, that all things were worked out,
   and that originality no longer was accessible for the rest of
   time, Providence, by the means of that great mind, bestowed a
   new art, as it were, upon mankind—at the very time when
   literature to all appearance was effete, and invention, for
   above a century, had run in the cramped and worn-out channels
   of imitation. Gibbon was lamenting that the subjects of
   history were exhausted, and that modern story would never
   present the moving incidents of ancient story, on the verge of
   the French Revolution and the European war—of the Reign of
   Terror and the Moscow retreat. Such was the reply of Time to
   the complaint that political incident was worn out. Not less
   decisive was the answer which the genius of the Scottish bard
   afforded to the opinion, that the treasures of original
   thought were exhausted, and that nothing now remained for the
   sons of men. In the midst of that delusion he wrote
   'Waverley'; and the effect was like the sun bursting through
   the clouds."

      Historical Romance
      (Blackwood's Magazine, September, 1845).


   "Those sticklers for truth, who reproach Scott with having
   falsified history because he wilfully confused dates, forget
   the far greater truth which that wonderful writer generally
   presented. If, for his purposes, he disarranged the order of
   events a little; no grave historian ever succeeded better in
   painting the character of the epoch. He committed errors of
   detail enough to make Mrs. Markham shudder. He divined
   important historical truth which had escaped the sagacity of
   all historians. A great authority, Augustin Thierry, has
   pronounced Scott the greatest of all historical divinators."

      G. H. Lewes,
      Historical Romance
      (Westminster Review, March, 1846).

   "The novel of Ivanhoe places us four generations after the
   invasion of the Normans, in the reign of Richard, son of Henry
   Plantagenet, sixth king since the conqueror. At this period,
   at which the historian Hume can only represent to us a king
   and England, without telling us what a king is, nor what he
   means by England, Walter Scott, entering profoundly into the
   examination of events, shows us classes of men, distinct
   interests and conditions, two nations, a double language,
   customs which repel and combat each other; on one side tyranny
   and insolence, on the other misery and hatred, real
   developments of the drama of the conquest, of which the battle
   of Hastings had been only the prologue. … In the midst of
   the world which no longer exists, Walter Scott always places
   the world which does and always will exist, that is to say,
   human nature, of which he knows all the secrets. Everything
   peculiar to the time and place, the exterior of men, the
   aspect of the country and of the habitations, costumes, and
   manners, are described with the most minute truthfulness; and
   yet the immense erudition which has furnished so many details
   is nowhere to be perceived. Walter Scott seems to have for the
   past that second sight, which in times of ignorance, certain
   men attributed to themselves for the future. To say that there
   is more real history in his novels on Scotland and England
   than in the philosophically false compilations which still
   possess that great name, is not advancing any thing strange in
   the eyes of those who have read and understood 'Old
   Mortality,' 'Waverley,' 'Rob Roy,' the 'Fortunes of Nigel,'
   and the 'Heart of Mid-Lothian.'"

      A. Thierry, Narratives of the Merovingian Era,
      Historical Essays, etc., essay 9.

   "We have all heard how the romances of Walter Scott brought
   history home to people who would never have looked into the
   ponderous volumes of professed historians, and many of us
   confess to ourselves that there are large historical periods
   which would be utterly unknown to us but for some story either
   of the great romancer or one of his innumerable imitators.
   Writers, as well as readers, of history were awakened by Scott
   to what seemed to them the new discovery that the great
   personages of history were after all men and women of flesh
   and blood like ourselves. Hence in all later historical
   literature there is visible the effort to make history more
   personal, more dramatic than it had been before. We can hardly
   read the interesting Life of Lord Macaulay without perceiving
   that the most popular historical work of modern times owes its
   origin in a great measure to the Waverley Novels. Macaulay
   grew up in a world of novels; his conversation with his
   sisters was so steeped in reminiscences of the novels they had
   read together as to be unintelligible to those who wanted the
   clue. His youth and early manhood witnessed the appearance of
   the Waverley Novels themselves. … He became naturally
   possessed by the idea which is expressed over and over again
   in his essays, and which at last he realized with such
   wonderful success, the idea that it was quite possible to make
   history as interesting as romance. … Macaulay is only the
   most famous of a large group of writers who have been
   possessed with the same idea. As Scott founded the historical
   romance, he may be said to have founded the romantic history.
   And to this day it is an established popular opinion that this
   is the true way of writing history, only that few writers have
   genius enough for it. … It must be urged against this kind
   of history that very few subjects or periods are worthy of it.
   Once or twice there have appeared glorious characters whose
   perfection no eloquence can exaggerate; once or twice national
   events have arranged themselves like a drama, or risen to the
   elevation of an epic poem. But the average of history is not
   like this; it is indeed much more ordinary and monotonous than
   is commonly supposed. The serious student of history has to
   submit to a disenchantment like that which the experience of
   life brings to the imaginative youth. As life is not much like
   romance, so history when it is studied in original documents
   looks very unlike the conventional representation of it which
   historians have accustomed us to."

      J. R. Seeley,
      History and Polities
      (Macmillan's Magazine, August, 1879).

   How to study History.

   "The object of the historical student is to bring before his
   mind a picture of the main events and the spirit of the times
   which he studies. The first step is to get a general view from
   a brief book; the second step is to enlarge it from more
   elaborate books, reading more than one, and to use some system
   of written notes keeping them complete. The next step is to
   read some of the contemporary writers. Having done these three
   things carefully, the historical student carries away an
   impression of his period which will never be effaced."

      Prof. A. B. Hart,
      How to Study History
      (Chautauquan, October, 1893).

   The Importance of a knowledge of Universal History.

   "When I was a schoolmaster, I never considered a pupil
   thoroughly educated unless he had read Gibbon through before
   he left me. I read it through myself before I was eighteen,
   and I have derived unspeakable advantage from this experience.
   Gibbon's faults of style and matter have very slight effect on
   the youthful mind, whereas his merits, his scholarship, his
   learning, his breadth of view, his imagination, and his
   insight, afford a powerful stimulus to study. … I … wish
   to urge the claims of two subjects on your attention which
   have hitherto been unaccountably neglected. The first of them
   is universal history, the general course of the history of the
   world. It seems natural to think that no subject could be more
   important for the consideration of any human being than the
   knowledge of the main lines which the race has followed since
   the dawn of history in reaching the position which it has now
   attained. The best way of understanding any situation is to
   know how affairs came into that position. Besides the
   satisfaction of legitimate curiosity, it is only thus that we
   can be wise reformers, and distinguish between what is a mere
   survival of the past and an institution which is inherent in
   the character of the community.
   Our German cousins are fully aware of this truth; a German
   parlour, however meagerly furnished, always contains two
   books, a Bible and a Weltgeschichte. I suppose that during the
   present century from a hundred to a hundred and fifty of these
   universal histories have made their appearance in Germany. In
   England I only know of two. In Germany, Italy, and Austria,
   and, I believe, in France, universal history forms an
   essential part of education for nearly all classes. It is
   taken as a subject under certain conditions in the
   Abiturienten-Examen. I once had the privilege of reading the
   notes of a viva voce examination of a student in this subject
   who did not pass. It covered the whole range of ancient,
   mediæval, and modern history. I was astonished at what the
   student did know, and still more at what he was expected to
   know. I should like to see the subject an essential part of
   all secondary education in England, just as the knowledge of
   Bible history was in my young days and may be still. If proper
   text-books were forthcoming, to which I again direct the
   attention of enterprising publishers, there would be no
   difficulty in making this subject an accompaniment of nearly
   every literary lesson. … The advantage would be the
   enlargement of the mind by the contemplation of the majestic
   march of human events and the preparation for any future
   course of historical study. 'Boys come to us,' said a German
   professor once to me, 'knowing their centuries.' How few
   English boys or even English men have any notion of their
   centuries! The dark ages are indeed dark to them. I once asked
   a boy at Eton, who had given me a date, whether it was B. C.
   or A. D. Being hopelessly puzzled, he replied that it was B.
   D. Many of us, if we were honest, would give a similar

      O. Browning,
      The Teaching of History in Schools
      (Royal Historical Society, Transactions,
      new series, volume 4).

   The Importance of Local History.

   "From a variety of considerations, the writer is persuaded
   that one of the best introductions to history that can be
   given in American high schools, and even in those of lower
   grade, is through a study of the community in which the school
   is placed. History, like charity, begins at home. The best
   American citizens are those who mind home affairs and local
   interest. 'That man's the best cosmopolite who loves his
   native country best.' The best students of universal history
   are those who know some one country or some one subject well.
   The family, the hamlet, the neighborhood, the community, the
   parish, the village, town, city, county, and state are
   historically the ways by which men have approached national
   and international life. It was a preliminary study of the
   geography of Frankfort-on-the-Main that led Carl Ritter to
   study the physical structure of Europe and Asia, and thus to
   establish the new science of comparative geography. He says:
   'Whoever has wandered through the valleys and woods, and over
   the hills and mountains of his own state, will be the one
   capable of following a Herodotus in his wanderings over the
   globe.' And we may say, as Ritter said of the science of
   geography, the first step in history is to know thoroughly the
   district where we live. … American local history should be
   studied as a contribution to national history. This country
   will yet be viewed and reviewed as an organism of historic
   growth, developing from minute germs, from the very protoplasm
   of state life. And some day this country will be studied in
   its international relations, as an organic part of a larger
   organism now vaguely called the World State, but as surely
   developing through the operation of economic, legal, social,
   and scientific forces as the American Union, the German and
   British Empires are evolving into higher forms. American
   history in its widest relations is not to be written by any
   one man nor by anyone generation of men. Our history will grow
   with the nation and with its developing consciousness of
   internationality. The present possibilities for the real
   progress of historic and economic science lie, first and
   foremost, in the development of a generation of economists and
   practical historians, who realize that history is past
   politics and politics present history; secondly, in the
   expansion of the local consciousness into a fuller sense of
   its historic worth and dignity, of the cosmopolitan relations
   of modern local life, and of its wholesome conservative power
   in these days of growing centralization. National and
   international life can best develop upon the constitutional
   basis of local self-government in church and state. … If
   young Americans are to appreciate their religious and
   political inheritance, they must learn its intrinsic worth.
   They must be taught to appreciate the common and lowly things
   around them. They should grow up with as profound respect for
   town and parish meetings as for the State legislature, not to
   speak of the Houses of Congress. They should recognize the
   majesty of the law, even in the parish constable as well as
   the high sheriff of the country. They should look on selectmen
   as the head men of the town, the survival of the old English
   reeve and four best men of the parish. They should be taught
   to see in the town common or village green a survival of that
   primitive institution of land-community upon which town and
   state are based. They should be taught the meaning of town and
   family names; how the word 'town' means, primarily, a place
   hedged in for the purposes of defence; how the picket-fences
   around home and house-lot are but a survival of the primitive
   town idea; how home, hamlet, and town live on together in a
   name like Hampton, or Home-town. They should investigate the
   most ordinary thing for these are often the most archaic. …
   It would certainly be an excellent thing for the development
   of historical science in America if teachers in our public
   schools would cultivate the historical spirit in their pupils
   with special reference to the local environment. … A
   multitude of historical associations gather around every old
   town and hamlet in the land. There are local legends and
   traditions, household tales, stories told by grandfathers and
   grandmothers, incidents remembered by 'the oldest
   inhabitants.' But above all in importance are the old
   documents and manuscript records of the first settlers, the
   early pioneers, the founders of our towns. Here are sources of
   information more authentic than tradition, and yet often
   entirely neglected. … In order to study history it is not
   necessary to begin with dead men's bones, with Theban
   dynasties, the kings of Assyria, the royal families of Europe,
   or even with the presidents of the United States. These
   subjects have their importance in certain connections, but for
   beginners in history there are perhaps other subjects of
   greater interest and vitality.
   The most natural entrance to a knowledge of the history of the
   world is from a local environment through widening circles of
   interest, until, from the rising ground of the present, the
   broad horizon of the past comes clearly into view. … A study
   of the community in which the student dwells will serve to
   connect that community not only with the origin and growth of
   the State and Nation, but with the mother-country, with the
   German fatherland, with village communities throughout the
   Aryan world,—from Germany and Russia to old Greece and Rome;
   from these classic lands to Persia and India."

      H. B. Adams, Methods of Historical Study
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, Second Series, 1-2),
      pages 16-21.

   ----------HISTORY: Start--------



HITTIN, Battle of (1187).

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.


   The Hittites mentioned in the Bible were known as the Khita or
   Khatta to the Egyptians, with whom they were often at war.
   Recent discoveries indicate that they formed a more civilized
   and powerful nation and played a more important part in the
   early history of Western Asia than was previously supposed.
   Many inscriptions and rock sculptures in Asia Minor and Syria
   which were formerly inexplicable are now attributed to the
   Hittites. The inscriptions have not yet been deciphered, but
   scholars are confident that the key to their secret will be
   found. The two chief cities of the Hittites were Kadesh on the
   Orontes and Carchemish on the Euphrates; so that their seat of
   empire was in northern Syria, but their power was felt from
   the extremity of Asia Minor to the confines of Egypt. It is
   conjectured that these people were originally from the
   Caucasus. "Their descendants," says Professor Sayee, "are
   still to be met with in the defiles of the Taurus and on the
   plateau of Kappadokia, though they have utterly forgotten the
   language or languages their forefathers spoke. What that
   language was is still uncertain, though the Hittite proper
   names which occur on the monuments of Egypt and Assyria show
   that it was neither Semitic nor Indo-European."

      A. H. Sayee,
      Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
      chapter 5.

   "We may … rest satisfied with the conclusion that the
   existence of a Hittite empire extending into Asia Minor is
   certified, not only by the records of ancient Egypt, but also
   by Hittite monuments which still exist. In the days of Ramses
   II., when the children of Israel were groaning under the tasks
   allotted to them, the enemies of their oppressors were already
   exercising a power and a domination which rivalled that of
   Egypt. The Egyptian monarch soon learned to his cost that the
   Hittite prince was as 'great' a king as himself, and could
   summon to his aid the inhabitants of the unknown north.
   Pharaoh's claim to sovereignty was disputed by adversaries as
   powerful as the ruler of Egypt, if indeed not more powerful,
   and there was always a refuge among them for those who were
   oppressed by the Egyptian king. When, however, we speak of a
   Hittite empire, we must understand clearly what that means. It
   was not an empire like that of Rome, where the subject
   provinces were consolidated together under a central
   authority, obeying the same laws and the same supreme head. It
   was not an empire like that of the Persians, or of the
   Assyrian successors of Tiglath-pileser III., which represented
   the organised union of numerous states and nations under a
   single ruler. … Before the days of Tiglath-pileser, in fact,
   empire in Western Asia meant the power of a prince to force a
   foreign people to submit to his rule. The conquered provinces
   had to be subdued again and again; but as long as this could
   be done, as long as the native struggles for freedom could be
   crushed by a campaign, so long did the empire exist. It was an
   empire of this sort that the Hittites established in Asia
   Minor. How long it lasted we cannot say. But so long as the
   distant races of the West answered the summons to war of the
   Hittite princes, it remained a reality. The fact that the
   tribes of the Troad and Lydia are found fighting under the
   command of the Hittite kings of Kadesh, proves that they
   acknowledged the supremacy of their Hittite lords, and
   followed them to battle like the vassals of some feudal chief.
   If Hittite armies had not marched to the shores of the Ægean,
   and Hittite princes been able from time to time to exact
   homage from the nations of the far west, Egypt would not have
   had to contend against the populations of Asia Minor in its
   wars with the Hittites, and the figures of Hittite warriors
   would not have been sculptured on the rocks of Karabel. There
   was a time when the Hittite name was feared as far as the
   western extremity of Asia Minor, and when Hittite satraps had
   their seat in the future capital of Lydia. Traditions of this
   period lingered on into classical days."

      A. H. Sayee,
      The Hittites,
      chapter 4.

      ALSO IN:
      W. Wright,
      The Empire of the Hittites.

      See, also,


   The "Midlanders," who dwelt in the middle of Canaan when the
   Israelites invaded it.



      See LADY.


      See LORD.


      See LOUIS.


      See STALLER.

HOBKIRK'S HILL, Battle of (1781).

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

HOCHE, Campaigns of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER),
      PROGRESS OF THE WAR; 1794-1796; 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).


   The name of an Indian village found by Cartier on the site of
   the present city of Montreal. An extensive region of
   surrounding country seems to have likewise borne the name
   Hochelaga, and Cartier calls the river St. Lawrence "the river
   of Hochelaga," or "the great river of Canada."

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535,
      and CANADA: NAMES.

HOCHHEIM, The storming of.


HOCHKIRCH, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

HÖCHST, Battle of (1622).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

   ----------HOCHSTADT: Start--------

HOCHSTADT, Battle of (1704).

   The great battle which English historians name from the
   village of Blenheim, is named by the French from the
   neighboring town of Hochstadt.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

HOCHSTADT: Battle of (1800).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

   ----------HOCHSTADT: End--------


HODEIBIA, Truce of.

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

HOFER, Andrew, and the Tyrolese revolt.

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

HOHENFRIEDBERG, Battle of (1745).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

HOHENLINDEN, Battle of (1800).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).


      See GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268;
      and ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to A. D. 1183-1250.

   Rise of the House of.

   "Hohenzollern lies far south in Schwaben (Suabia), on the
   sunward slope of the Rauhe-Alp Country; no great way north
   from Constance and its Lake; but well aloft, near the springs
   of the Danube; its back leaning on the Black Forest; it is
   perhaps definable as the southern summit of that same huge old
   Hercynian Wood, which is still called the Schwarzwald (Black
   Forest), though now comparatively bare of trees. Fanciful
   Dryasdust, doing a little etymology, will tell you the name
   'Zollern' is equivalent to 'Tollery' or Place of Tolls.
   Whereby Hohenzollern' comes to mean the 'High' or Upper
   'Tollery';—and gives one the notion of antique pedlars
   climbing painfully, out of Italy and the Swiss valleys, thus
   far; unstrapping their packhorses here, and chaffering in
   unknown dialect about 'toll.' Poor souls;—it may be so, but
   we do not know, nor shall it concern us. This only is known:
   That a human kindred, probably of some talent for coercing
   anarchy and guiding mankind, had, centuries ago, built its
   'Burg' there, and done that function in a small but creditable
   way ever since."

      T. Carlyle,
      Frederick the Great,
      book 2, chapter 5.

   "The title, Count of Zollern, was conferred by Henry IV. in
   the eleventh century. … In 1190 Henry VI. appointed the
   Count of Zollern to the imperial office of Burgrave of
   Nuremberg. By fortunate marriages and prudent purchases, his
   descendants, who retained the office, gradually acquired
   extensive estates in Franconia, Moravia, and Burgundy, and
   their wisdom and growing power steadily increased their weight
   in the councils of the German princes. … Frederick VI. was
   enriched by Sigismund with large gifts of money, and was made
   his deputy in Brandenburg in 1411. The marches were in utter
   confusion, under the feuds and ravages of the unrestrained
   knighthood. Frederick reduced them to order, and at the
   Council of Constance, in 1417, received from Sigismund the
   margraviate of Brandenburg with the dignity of Elector."

      C. T. Lewis,
      History of Germany,
      book 3, chapter 12, section 1.

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168-1417.


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

   ----------HOLLAND: Start--------

   The country and its Name.


HOLLAND: A. D. 1430.
   Absorbed in the dominions of the House of Burgundy.

   See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1417-1430.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1477.
   The "Great Privilege" granted by Mary of Burgundy.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1488-1491.
   The Bread and Cheese War.
   End of the Party of the Hooks.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1494.
   The Great Privilege disputed by Philip the Handsome.
   Friesland detached.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1506-1609.
   The Austro-Spanish tyranny.
   Revolt and independence of the United Provinces.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519, to 1594-1609.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1651-1660.
   Supremacy in the Republic of the United Provinces.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1651-1660.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1665-1747.
   Wars with England and France.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1665-1666.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1746.
   The restored Stadtholdership.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1787.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1793-1810.
   French invasion and conquest.
   The Batavian Republic.
   The kingdom of Louis Bonaparte.
   Annexation to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL);
      1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY);
      and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1813-1814.
   Independence regained.
   Belgium annexed.
   The kingdom of the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1813;
      FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);

HOLLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.
   Dissolution of the kingdom of the Netherlands.
   Creation of the kingdoms of Holland and Belgium.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.

   ----------HOLLAND: Start--------


      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

HOLLY SPRINGS, Confederate capture.



   "The sacrifice of a whole burnt-offering, where nothing was
   kept back for the enjoyment of men," was called a holocaust by
   the ancient Greeks.

      G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      page 60.

   ----------HOLSTEIN: Start--------

HOLSTEIN: A. D. 1848-1866.
   The Schleswig-Holstein question.

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

HOLSTEIN: A. D. 1866.
   Annexation to Prussia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

   ----------HOLSTEIN: End--------


   "The document called the Holy Alliance was originally sketched
   at Paris [during the occupation of the French capital by the
   Allies, after Waterloo, in 1815], in the French language, by
   [the Czar] Alexander's own hand, after a long and animated
   conversation with Madame de Krüdener and Bergasse. It was
   suggested, perhaps, by words spoken by the king of Prussia
   after the battle of Bautzen, but was chiefly the result of the
   influence, upon a mind always inclined to religious ideas, of
   the conversation of Madame de Krüdener and of the philosopher
   Bader, the admirer of Tauler, Jacob Boehm, and St. Martin, the
   deadly foe of Kant and his successors in Germany. … The Czar
   dreamt of founding a Communion of states, bound together by
   the first principles of Christianity. … The king of Prussia
   signed the paper from motives of friendship for the Czar,
   without attaching much importance to what he did. … The
   emperor of Austria, the least sentimental of mankind, at first
   declined to sign, 'because,' he said, 'if the secret is a
   political one, I must tell it, to Metternich; if it is a
   religious one, I must tell it to my confessor.' Metternich
   accordingly was told; and observed scornfully, 'C'est du
   Indeed no one of the princes who adhered to the Holy Alliance,
   with the single exception of Alexander himself, ever took it
   seriously. It was doomed from its birth. As M. de Bernhardi
   observes: 'It sank without leaving a trace in the stream of
   events, never became a reality, and never had the slightest
   real importance.' What had real importance was the continuance
   of the good understanding between the powers who had put down
   Napoleon, and their common fear of France. This good
   understanding and that common fear led to the treaty of the
   20th November 1815, by which it was stipulated that the Powers
   should, from time to time, hold Congresses with a view to
   regulating the welfare of nations and the peace of Europe. It
   was these Congresses, and not the Holy Alliance, which kept up
   close relations between the rulers of Russia, Prussia, and
   Austria, and enabled them, when the liberal movement on the
   Continent, which followed the conclusion of the war, began to
   be alarming, to take measures for a combined system of

      M. E. G. Duff,
      Studies in European Polities,
      chapter 2.

   The text of the Treaty is as follows:

   "In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity: Holy
   Alliance of Sovereigns of Austria, Prussia, and Russia. Their
   Majesties the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia, and the
   Emperor of Russia, having, in consequence of the great events
   which have marked the course of the three last years in
   Europe, and especially of the blessings which it has pleased
   Divine Providence to shower down upon those States which place
   their confidence and their hope on it alone, acquired the
   intimate conviction of the necessity of settling the steps to
   be observed by the Powers, in their reciprocal relations, upon
   the sublime truths which the Holy Religion of our Saviour
   teaches; They solemnly declare that the present Act has no
   other object than to publish, in the face of the whole world,
   their fixed resolution, both in the administration of their
   respective States, and in their political relations with every
   other Government, to take for their sole guide the precepts of
   that Holy Religion, namely, the precepts of Justice, Christian
   Charity, and Peace, which, far from being applicable only to
   private concerns, must have an immediate influence on the
   councils of Princes, and guide all their steps, as being the
   only means of consolidating human institutions and remedying
   their imperfections. In consequence, their Majesties have
   agreed on the following Articles:—

      Art. I. Conformably to the words of the Holy Scriptures,
      which command all men to consider each other as brethren,
      the Three contracting Monarchs will remain united by the
      bonds of a true and indissoluble fraternity, and
      considering each other as fellow countrymen, they will, on
      all occasions and in all places, lend each other aid and
      assistance; and, regarding themselves towards their
      subjects and armies as fathers of families, they will lead
      them, in the same spirit of fraternity with which they are
      animated, to protect Religion, Peace, and Justice.

      Art II. In consequence, the sole principle of force,
      whether between the said Governments or between their
      Subjects, shall be that of doing each other reciprocal
      service, and of testifying by unalterable good will the
      mutual affection with which they ought to be animated, to
      consider themselves all as members of one and the same
      Christian nation; the three allied Princes looking on
      themselves as merely delegated by Providence to govern
      three branches of the One family, namely, Austria, Prussia,
      and Russia, thus confessing that the Christian world, of
      which they and their people form a part, has in reality no
      other Sovereign than Him to whom alone power really
      belongs, because in Him alone are found all the treasures
      of love, science, and infinite wisdom, that is to say, God,
      our Divine Saviour, the Word of the Most High, the Word of
      Life. Their Majesties consequently recommend to their
      people, with the most tender solicitude, as the sole means
      of enjoying that Peace which arises from a good conscience,
      and which alone is durable, to strengthen themselves every
      day more and more in the principles and exercise of the
      duties which the Divine Saviour has taught to mankind.

      Art. III. All the Powers who shall choose solemnly to avow
      the sacred principles which have dictated the present Act,
      and shall acknowledge how important it is for the happiness
      of nations, too long agitated, that these truths should
      henceforth exercise over the destinies of mankind all the
      influence which belongs to them, will be received with
      equal ardour and affection into this Holy Alliance. Done in
      triplicate, and signed at Paris, the year of Grace 1815,
      14/26th September."

   "It is stated in 'Martens' Treaties' that the greater part of
   the Christian Powers acceded to this Treaty. France acceded to
   it in 1815; the Netherlands and Wurtemberg did so in 1816; and
   Saxony, Switzerland, and the Hansa Towns in 1817. But neither
   the Pope nor the Sultan were invited to accede."

      E. Hertslet,
      Map of Europe by Treaty,
      volume 1, number 36, pages 317-319.

   "The Treaty of the Holy Alliance was not graced with the name
   of the Prince Regent [of Great Britain], but the Czar received
   a letter declaring that his principles had the personal
   approval of this great authority on religion and morality. The
   Kings of Naples and Sardinia were the next to subscribe, and
   in due time the names of the witty glutton, Louis XVIII., and
   of the abject Ferdinand of Spain were added."

      C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 2, chapter 1.

   "Metternich, the worldly-wise, smiled at this manifesto as
   'nothing more than a philanthropic aspiration clothed in a
   religious garb.' He suspected that the evil-minded would
   misinterpret and that the jokers would ridicule it, but none
   knew better than he the flimsiness of diplomatic agreements,
   and accordingly he consented to it. Christianity has had many
   crimes committed in its name; the Holy Alliance made
   Christianity the cloak under which the kings of Europe
   conspired to perpetuate the helotage of their subjects.
   Metternich found it all the easier to direct kings whose
   common interest it was to uphold the paternal system therein
   approved. He exerted his influence over each of them
   separately; if the monarch were obdurate, he wheedled his
   minister; if the minister were wary, he prejudiced the monarch
   against him. Now by flattery, and now by specious argument, he
   won his advantage. … Like a trickster at cards, he marked
   every card in the pack and could always play the ace. … He
   told the truth when he knew it would not be believed; he
   prevaricated when he intended his falsehood should pass for
   truth. This was diplomacy, these the 'Christian precepts' by
   which one hundred and fifty millions of Europeans were
   In a society where everyone lies, falsehoods of equal cunning
   nullify each other. Metternich took care that his should excel
   in verisimilitude and in subtlety. It was an open battle of
   craft; but his craft was as superior to that of his
   competitors as a slow, undetectable poison is more often fatal
   than the hasty stab of a bravo. He fished both with hooks and
   nets; if one broke, the other held. … He was, we may affirm,
   sincerely insincere; strongly attached to the Hapsburg
   dynasty, and patriotic in so far as the aggrandizement of that
   House corresponded with the interests of the Austrian State.
   But the central figure in his perspective was always himself,
   whom he regarded as the savior of a social order whose
   preservation held back the world from chaos. … He spoke of
   his mission as an 'apostolate.' … To resist all
   change,—that was his policy; to keep the surface
   smooth,—that was his peace. … He likened himself to a
   spider, spinning a vast web. 'I begin to know the world well,'
   he said, 'and I believe that the flies are eaten by the
   spiders only because they die naturally so young that they
   have no time to gain experience, and do not know what is the
   nature of a spider's web.' How many flies he caught during his
   forty years' spinning! but his success, he admitted, was due
   quite as much to their blindness as to his cunning. … He
   seemed to delight in royal conferences in order that he might
   have the excitement of manipulating Alexander and Frederick
   William; for his own Emperor, Francis, was as pliable as putty
   in his hands. Such was Metternich, 'the most worldly, the most
   dexterous, the most fortunate of politicians,' the embodiment
   of that Old Régime strangely interpolated in the nineteenth
   century. Knowing him, we shall know the nature of the
   resistance which checked every patriotic impulse, every effort
   towards progress in Italy, between 1815 and 1848. Few names
   have been hated as his was hated, or feared as his was feared.
   The Italians pictured to themselves a monster, a worse than
   Herod, who gloated over human suffering, and spent his time in
   inventing new tortures for his victims. He regarded them, and
   all liberals, as natural enemies to the order in which he
   flourished; and he had no more mercy for them than the Spanish
   Inquisitors had for heretics."

      W. R. Thayer,
      The Dawn of Italian Independence,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).


   Before the close of the 13th century, there first arose in
   Spain "an anomalous institution peculiar to Castile, which
   sought to secure the public tranquillity by means scarcely
   compatible themselves with civil subordination. I refer to the
   celebrated Hermandad, or Holy Brotherhood, as the association
   was sometimes called,—a name familiar to most readers in the
   lively fictions of Le Sage, though conveying there no very
   adequate idea of the extraordinary functions which it assumed
   at the period under review [13th-14th centuries]. Instead of a
   regularly organized police, it then consisted of a
   confederation of the principal cities, bound together by a
   solemn league and covenant for the defence of their liberties
   in seasons of civil anarchy. Its affairs were conducted by
   deputies, who assembled at stated intervals for this purpose,
   transacting their business under a common seal, enacting laws
   which they were careful to transmit to the nobles and even the
   sovereign himself, and enforcing their measures by an armed
   force. … One hundred cities associated in the Hermandad of
   1315. In that of 1295, were thirty-four. The knights and
   inferior nobility frequently made part of the association. …
   In one of [the articles of confederation] it is declared that
   if any noble shall deprive a member of the association of his
   property, and refuse restitution, his house shall be razed to
   the ground. In another, that if any one, by command of the
   king, shall attempt to collect an unlawful tax, he shall be
   put to death on the spot." Under the government of Ferdinand
   and Isabella, among the measures adopted for checking the
   license and disorder which had become prevalent in Castile,
   and restoring a more effective administration of justice, was
   one for a reorganization of the Santa Hermandad. "The project
   for the reorganization of this institution was introduced into
   the cortes held, the year after Isabella's accession, at
   Madrigal, 1476. … The new institution differed essentially
   from the ancient hermandades, since, instead of being partial
   in its extent, it was designed to embrace the whole kingdom;
   and, instead of being directed, as had often been the case,
   against the crown itself, it was set in motion at the
   suggestion of the latter, and limited in its operation to the
   maintenance of public order. The crimes reserved for its
   jurisdiction were all violence or theft committed on the
   highways or in the open country, and in cities by such
   offenders as escaped into the country; house-breaking; rape;
   and resistance of justice. … An annual contribution of
   18,000 maravedis was assessed on every 100 vecinos or
   householders, for the equipment and maintenance of a horseman,
   whose duty it was to arrest offenders and enforce the sentence
   of the law. On the flight of a criminal, the tocsins of the
   villages through which he was supposed to have passed were
   sounded, and the quadrilleros or officers of the brotherhood,
   stationed on the different points, took up the pursuit with
   such promptness as left little chance of escape. A court of
   two alcaldes was established in every town containing thirty
   families, for the trial of all crimes within the jurisdiction
   of the hermandad; and an appeal lay from them in specified
   cases to a supreme council. A general junta, composed of
   deputies from the cities throughout the kingdom was annually
   convened for the regulation of affairs, and their instructions
   were transmitted to provincial juntas, who superintended the
   execution of them. … Notwithstanding the popular
   constitution of the hermandad, and the obvious advantages
   attending its introduction at this juncture, it experienced so
   decided an opposition from the nobility, who discerned the
   check it was likely to impose on their authority, that it
   required all the queen's address and perseverance to effect
   its general adoption. … The important benefits resulting
   from the institution of the hermandad secured its confirmation
   by successive cortes, for the period of 22 years, in spite of
   the repeated opposition of the aristocracy. At length, in
   1498, the objects for which it was established having been
   completely obtained, it was deemed advisable to relieve the
   nation from the heavy charges which its maintenance imposed.
   The great salaried officers were dismissed; a few subordinate
   functionaries were retained for the administration of justice,
   over whom the regular courts of criminal law possessed appellate
   jurisdiction; and the magnificent apparatus of the Santa
   Hermandad, stripped of all but the terrors of its name,
   dwindled into an ordinary police, such as it has existed, with
   various modifications of form, down to the present century."

      W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
      introduction, section 1, with foot-note,
      and part 1, chapter 6.



      See MEXICO: A. D. 1535-1822.

HOLY GHOST, The military Order of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.


      See SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.

   ----------HOLY LEAGUES: Start--------

   Pope Julius II. against Louis XII. of France.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

   Pope Clement VII. against Charles V.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.

   German Catholic princes against the Protestant League of

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.

   Spain, Venice and Pope Pius V. against the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

   Of the Catholic party in the Religious Wars of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585, to 1593-1598.

   Pope Innocent XI., the Emperor, Venice, Poland and Russia
   against the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

   ----------HOLY LEAGUES: End--------

HOLY LION, Battle of the (1568).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572.


      See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

   Its origin.

      See ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 963.

   Its extinction.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.


   "A certified fragment of the true cross preserved in a shrine
   of gold or silver gilt. It was brought over by St. Margaret,
   and left as a sacred legacy to her descendants and their
   kingdom. … The rood had been the sanctifying relic round
   which King David I. raised the house of canons regular of the
   Holy Rood, devoted to the rule of St. Augustin, at Edinburgh.
   The kings of Scotland afterwards found it so convenient to
   frequent this religious house that they built alongside of it
   a royal residence or palace, well known to the world as
   Holyrood House."

      J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 20 (volume 2).

   The Holy Rood, or Black Rood as it was sometimes called, was
   carried away from Scotland, along with the "coronation stone,"
   by Edward I. of England, afterwards got back by treaty, and
   then lost again at the battle of Neville's Cross, from which
   it went as a trophy to Durham Abbey.

HOLY WAR, Mahometan.

      See DAR-UL-ISLAM.




      See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879, to 1893.


   "When we use the word Homer, we do not mean a person
   historically known to us, like Pope or Milton. We mean in the
   main the author, whoever or whatever he was, of the wonderful
   poems called respectively, not by the author, but by the
   world, the 'Iliad' and the 'Odyssey.' His name is
   conventional, and its sense in etymology is not very different
   from that which would be conveyed by our phrase, 'the author.'
   … At the first dawn of the historic period, we find the
   poems established in popular renown; and so prominent that a
   school of minstrels takes the name of 'Homeridæ' from making
   it their business to preserve and to recite them. Still, the
   question whether the poems as we have them can be trusted,
   whether they present substantially the character of what may
   be termed original documents, is one of great but gradually
   diminishing difficulty. It is also of importance, because of
   the nature of their contents. In the first place, they give a
   far greater amount of information than is to be found in any
   other literary production of the same compass. In the second
   place, that information, speaking of it generally, is to be
   had nowhere else. In the third place, it is information of the
   utmost interest, and even of great moment. It introduces to
   us, in the very beginnings of their experience, the most
   gifted people of the world, and enables us to judge how they
   became such as in later times we know them. … And this
   picture is exhibited with such a fulness both of particulars
   and of vital force, that perhaps never in any country has an
   age been so completely placed upon record. … We are …
   probably to conceive of Homer as of a Bard who went from place
   to place to earn his bread by his profession, to exercise his
   knowledge in his gift of song, and to enlarge it by an
   ever-active observation of nature and experience of men. …
   It has … been extensively believed that he was a Greek of
   Asia Minor. And as there were no Greeks of Asia Minor at the
   time of the Trojan War, nor until a wide and searching
   revolution in the peninsula had substituted Dorian manners for
   those of the earlier Achaian age, which Homer sang, this
   belief involves the further proposition that the poet was
   severed by a considerable interval of time from the subjects
   of his verse. The last-named opinion depends very much upon
   the first; and the first chiefly, if not wholly, upon a
   perfectly vague tradition, which has no pretence to an
   historical character. … The question … has to be decided …
   by the internal evidence of the poems. This evidence, I
   venture to say, strongly supports the belief that Homer was an
   European, and if an European, then certainly also an Achaian
   Greek: a Greek, that is to say, of the pre-Doric period, when
   the Achaian name prevailed and principally distinguished the
   race. … Until the 18th century of our era was near its
   close, it may be said that all generations had believed Troy
   was actually Troy, and Homer in the main Homer; neither taking
   the one for a fable, or (quaintest of all dreams) for a symbol
   of solar phenomena, nor resolving the other into a multiform
   assemblage of successive bards, whose verses were at length
   pieced together by a clever literary tailor. … After
   slighter premonitory movements, it was Wolf that made, by the
   publication of his 'Prolegomena' in 1795, the serious attack.
   … Wolf maintained that available writing was not known at,
   or till long after, the period of their composition; and that
   works of such length, not intrusted to the custody of written
   characters, could not have been transmitted through a course
   of generations with any approach to fidelity. Therefore they
   could only be a number of separate songs, brought together at
   a later date."

      W. E. Gladstone,
      Homer (Literature Primers),
      chapters 1-2.


   "Homeric geography is entirely pre-Dorian. Total
   unconsciousness of any such event as the Dorian invasion
   reigns both in the Iliad and Odyssey. … A silence so
   remarkable can be explained only by the simple supposition
   that when they were composed the revolution in question had
   not yet occurred. Other circumstances confirm this view."

      A. M. Clerke,
      Familiar Studies in Homer,
      chapter 1.

   "It is … in the discoveries of Dr. Schliemann that we have
   the impulse which seems to be sending the balance over towards
   the belief in the European instead of in the Asiatic origin of
   the poems. We now know that at the very point which Homer
   makes the chief royal city of Greece there did, in fact, exist
   a civilisation which did, in fact, offer just the conditions
   for the rise of a poetry such as the Homeric—a great city
   'rich in gold,' with a cultivation of the material arts such
   as is wont to go hand in hand with the growth of poetry. …


   It is no longer possible to doubt that the world which the
   poems describe was one which really existed in the place where
   they put it. Even in details the poems have received striking
   illustration from the remains of Mykenai. … It appears that
   we may date the oldest part of the Iliad at least to some time
   before the Dorian invasion, which, according to the
   traditional chronology, took place about 1000 B. C. … But
   the poems can hardly be much earlier than the invasion; for
   there are various signs which indicate that the civilisation
   which they depict had made some advance beyond that of which
   we find the material remains in the 'shaft tombs,' discovered
   by Dr. Schliemann in the Acropolis of Mykenai. And the date of
   these has now been fixed by Mr. Petrie, from comparison with
   Egyptian remains, at about 1150. We can therefore hardly be
   far wrong, if the poems were composed in Achaian Greece, in
   dating their origin at about 1050 B. C. There still remains
   the question of the historical basis which may underlie the
   story of the Iliad. The poem may give us a true picture of
   Achaian Greece and its civilisation, and yet be no proof that
   the armies of Agamemnon fought beneath the walls of Troy. But
   here again the discoveries of recent years, and notably those
   of Schliemann at Hissarlik, have tended on the whole to
   confirm the belief that there is a historic reality behind the
   tale of Troy. … The hypothesis that the Iliad and Odyssey
   are the work of more than one poet … is one which has been
   gaining ground ever since it was seriously taken up and argued
   at length by Wolf in his famous 'Prolegomena,' just a century
   ago. But it has from the first encountered strong opposition,
   and is still regarded, in England at least, as the heretical

      W. Leaf,
      Companion to the Iliad,

   "It seems clear that the author or authors of the Iliad and
   Odyssey lived long before the time when Æolian, Ionian,
   Dorian, were the three great tribal names of Greece, and far
   from the coast on which these three names were attached to
   successive portions of territory. If we are to decide the
   ancient controversy about the birthplace of Homer, we must
   turn away from Asia, and set ourselves to consider the claims
   of three districts of Greece proper: Thessaly, the home of the
   chief hero and the most ancient worship; Bœotia, the ancient
   seat of the Muses, and the first in the very ancient (if not
   actually Homeric) muster-roll of the ships; and Argolis, the
   seat of Achæan empire."

      D. B. Monro,
      Homer and the Early History of Greece
      (English Historical Review, January, 1886).

   "I hold that the original nucleus of the Iliad was due to a
   single Achaean poet, living in Thessaly before the immigration
   which partly displaced the primitive Hellenes there. This
   primary Iliad may have been as old as the eleventh century B.
   C. It was afterwards brought by Achaean emigrants to Ionia,
   and there enlarged by successive Ionian poets. The original
   nucleus of the Odyssey was also composed, probably, in Greece
   proper, before the Dorian conquest of the Peloponnesus; was
   carried to Ionia by emigrants whom the conquerors drove out;
   and was there expanded into an epic which blends the local
   traits of its origin with the spirit of Ionian adventure and
   Ionian society."

      R. C. Jebb,
      The growth and influence of Classical Greek Poetry,
      page 14.

      R. C. Jebb,
      Homer: An Introduction to the Iliad and the Odyssey.

   "We accept the Iliad as one epic by one hand. The
   inconsistencies which are the basis of the opposite theory
   seem to us reconcileable in many places, in others greatly
   exaggerated. … To us the hypothesis of a crowd of great
   harmonious poets, working for centuries at the Iliad, and
   sinking their own fame and identity in Homer's, appears more
   difficult of belief than the opinion that one great poet may
   make occasional slips and blunders." As for the Odyssey, "we
   have … to deal with critics who do not recognise the unity,
   the marshalling of incidents towards a given end. We have to
   do with critics who find, in place of unity, patchwork and
   compilation, and evident traces of diverse dates, and diverse
   places of composition. Thus argument is inefficient,
   demonstration is impossible, and the final judge must be the
   opinion of the most trustworthy literary critics and of
   literary tradition. These are unanimous, as against the
   'microscope-men,' in favor of the unity of the Odyssey."

      A. Lang,
      Homer and the Epic,
      chapters 7 and 13.






   A victory for the English, under "Hotspur," over a raiding
   army of the Scots, A. D. 1402. It was won almost entirely by
   the English cross-bow. By some historians it is called the
   Battle of Humbledon.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1400-1436.



HOMS, Battle of (1832).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

HONDSCHOTTEN, Battle of (1793).

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

   ----------HONDURAS: Start--------

   Aboriginal inhabitants.
   Ruins of Ancient Civilization.


HONDURAS: A. D. 1502.
   Discovery by Columbus.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.

HONDURAS: A. D. 1524.
   Conquest by Olid and Cortes.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.


HONDURAS: A. D. 1821-1871.
   Separation from Spain and independence.
   Brief annexation to Mexico.
   Attempted federations and their failure.
   The British colony.

      See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

   ----------HONDURAS: End--------

HONDURAS, British: A. D. 1850.
   The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

      See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

HONE, William, The Trials of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

HONEIN, Battle of.

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

HONG-KONG: A. D. 1842.
   Ceded to Great Britain.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.


      See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

   Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 395-423.
   Honorius I., Pope, 625-638.
   Honorius II., Pope, 1124-1130.
   Honorius III., Pope, 1216-1227.
   Honorius IV., Pope, 1285-1287;

HONOURS, Escheated.

   "When a great barony by forfeiture or escheat fell into the
   hands of the [English] crown, instead of being incorporated
   with the general body of the county or counties in which it
   lay, it retained a distinct corporate existence and the whole
   apparatus of jurisdiction which it had possessed before. Under
   the title of an Honour, it either continued in the possession
   of the king and was farmed like a shire, or was granted out
   again to another lord as a hereditary fief."

       W. Stubbs,
       Constitutional History of England,
       chapter 11, section 129 (volume 1).

HOOD, General John B.
   The Atlanta campaign.


HOOKER, General Joseph, Commander of the Army of the Potomac.

      and (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).

   Transfer to Chattanooga.


   At Chattanooga.—The Battle above the Clouds.



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

HOOVER'S GAP, Battle at.

      A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: TENNESSEE).


   Heavy-armed foot-soldiers of the Greeks.

      See PHYLÆ.






   The aborigines of Canaan,—dwellers in caves, Troglodytes. "At
   the time of the Israelitish conquest … there still existed
   many remains of the Aborigines scattered through the land.
   They were then ordinarily designated by a name which suggests
   very different ideas—Rephaim, or Giants."

      H. Ewald,
      History of Israel, introduction,
      section 4.

   F. Lenormant considers the Rephaim a distinct race, divided
   into the Rephaim of Bashan, the Emim, the Zamzummim, the Zumim
   and the Anakim.

      Manual of Ancient History,
      book 6, chapter 1.

      See, also,

HORMUZ, Battle of.

   The decisive battle, fought A. D. 226, on the plain of Hormuz,
   in Persia Proper, in which the Parthian monarchy was
   overthrown, its last king, Artabanus, slain, and the New
   Persian, or Sassanian empire established by Artaxerxes I.

      G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 3.

HORN, Count, and the struggle in the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

HORN, Cape.
   Discovered by Drake (1578).

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.


      See ROME: B. C. 286.

HOSEIN, The martyrdom of.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 680.


   "In the earlier stages of society, especially in Greece and
   Italy, where the population consisted of numerous independent
   tribes constantly at variance with each other, every stranger
   was looked upon with suspicion. … Hence it became common for
   a person who was engaged in commerce, or any other occupation
   which might compel him to visit a foreign country, to form
   previously a connection with a citizen of that country, who
   might be ready to receive him as a friend and act as his
   protector. Such a connection was always strictly reciprocal.
   … An alliance of this description was termed Hospitium, the
   parties who concluded it were termed Hospites in relation to
   each other, and thus the word Hospes bore a double
   signification, denoting, according to circumstances, either an
   entertainer or a guest. The obligations imposed by the
   covenant were regarded as of the most sacred character. …
   The league of Hospitium, when once formed, was hereditary. …
   The parties interchanged tokens, by which they or their
   descendants might recognise each other. This token, called
   'tessera hospitalis,' was carefully preserved. … In process
   of time, among both the Greeks and Romans, it became common
   for a state, when it desired to pay a marked compliment to any
   individual, to pass a resolution declaring him the Hospes of
   the whole community."

      W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 3.

   ----------HOSPITALLERS: Start--------

   A. D. 1115-1310.
   The origin and rise of the order.

   "Some citizens of Amalfi, in Italy, who traded to the East,
   had [some time before the first crusade], with the permission
   of the Egyptian khaleefeh, built a convent near the church of
   the Resurrection [at Jerusalem], which was dedicated to the
   Virgin, and named Santa Maria de Latina, whose abbot and monks
   were to receive and entertain pilgrims from the West. A
   nunnery was afterwards added, and as the confluence of
   pilgrims increased, a new 'hospitium' was erected, dedicated
   to St. John Eleëmon ('compassionate'), a former patriarch of
   Alexandria, or, as is asserted, with perhaps more probability,
   to St. John the Baptist. This hospital was supported by the
   bounty of the abbot of Sta. Maria and the alms of the
   faithful, and the sick and poor of the pilgrims here met with
   attention and kindness. At the time of the taking of
   Jerusalem, Gerhard, a native of Provence, presided over the
   hospital; and the care taken by him and his brethren of the
   sick and wounded of the crusaders won them universal favour.
   Godfrey bestowed on them his domain of Monboire, in Brabant;
   his example was followed by others, and the brethren of the
   Hospital soon found themselves rich enough to separate from
   the monastery.
   They adopted the rule of the Augustinian canons, and assumed
   for their habit a black mantle, with a white cross of eight
   points on the left breast. Many knights who had come to Asia
   to combat the Infidels now laid aside their swords, and, as
   brethren of the Hospital, devoted themselves to the tending of
   the sick and relieving of the poor. Among these was a knight
   of Dauphiné, named Raymond Dupuy, who, on the death of
   Gerhard, was chosen to be his successor in office. Raymond, in
   the year 1118, gave the order its first regular organization."

      T. Keightley,
      The Crusaders,
      chapter 2.

   To Raymond Dupuy "the Order owed its distinctly military
   character, and that wonderful organization, combining the care
   of the sick and poor with the profession of arms, which
   characterized the Knights of St. John during all their
   subsequent history. … A new and revised constitution was
   drawn up, by which it was provided that there should be three
   classes of members. First, the Knights, who should bear arms
   and form a military body for service in the field against the
   enemies of Christ in general, and of the kingdom of Jerusalem
   in particular. These were to be of necessity men of noble or
   gentle birth. Secondly, the Clergy, or Chaplains. … Thirdly,
   the Serving Brethren, who were not required to be men of rank,
   and who acted as Esquires to the Knights, and assisted in the
   care of the hospitals. All persons of these three classes were
   considered alike members of the Order, and took the usual
   three monastic vows, and wore the armorial bearings of the
   Order, and enjoyed its rights and privileges. As the Order
   spread and the number of its members and convents increased,
   it was found desirable to divide it further into nations or
   'Langes' [tongues, or languages], of which there were
   ultimately seven, viz., those of Provence, Auvergne, France,
   Italy, Aragon, Germany, and England. The habit was a black
   robe with a cowl, having a cross of white linen of eight
   points upon the left breast. This was at first worn by all
   Hospitallers, to whichever of the three classes they belonged;
   but Pope Alexander IV. afterwards ordered that the Knights
   should be distinguished by a white cross upon a red ground.
   … It was not long before the new Order found a field for the
   exercise of its arms. … From this time the Hospitallers were
   always found in the ranks of the Christian army in every
   battle that was fought with the Moslems, and the fame of their
   gallantry and bravery soon spread far and wide, and attracted
   fresh recruits to their ranks from the noblest families of
   every country of Europe. They became the right hand of the
   King of Jerusalem," sharing the fortunes of the nominal
   kingdom for nearly two centuries, and almost sharing its
   ultimate fate. The handful who escaped from Acre in 1291 (see
   JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291) took refuge in Cyprus and rallied there
   the Knights scattered in other lands. Rebuilding and
   fortifying the town of Limisso, they made that their citadel
   and capital for a few years, finding a new vocation for their
   pious valor. They now took up war upon the naval side, and
   turned their arms specially against the Moslem pirates of the
   Mediterranean. They fitted out armed ships "which began to
   cruise between Palestine and European ports, conveying
   pilgrims, rescuing captives, and engaging and capturing the
   enemy's galleys." But not finding in Cyprus the independence
   they desired, the Knights, ere long, established themselves in
   a more satisfactory home on the island of Rhodes.

      F. C. Woodhouse,
      Military Religious Orders of the Middle Ages,
      part 1, chapter 3-6.

      ALSO IN:
      Abbe de Vertot,
      History of the Knights Hospitallers,
      books 1-3 (volume 1).

      A. Sutherland,
      Achievements of the Knights of Malta,
      chapters 1-9 (volume 1).

   Conquest and occupation of Rhodes.

   "The most important conquest of the time … was that of
   Rhodes, by the Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem,
   both from its durability and from the renown of the
   conquerors. The knights had settled in Cyprus after they had
   been expelled from Acre, but they were soon discontented to
   remain as vassals of the King of Cyprus. They aspired to form
   a sovereign state, but it was not easy to make any conquests
   from the Infidels in a position which they could hope to
   maintain for any length of time. They therefore solicited
   permission from the Pope to turn their arms against the
   Greeks. His Holiness applauded their Christian zeal, and
   bestowed on them innumerable blessings and indulgences,
   besides nine thousand ducats to aid their enterprise. Under
   the pretext of a crusade for the recovery of Christ's tomb,
   the knights collected a force with which they besieged Rhodes.
   So great was their contempt for the Greek emperor that they
   sent an embassy to Constantinople, requiring Adronicus to
   withdraw his garrisons, and cede the island and its
   dependencies to them as feudatories, offering to supply him
   with a subsidiary force of three hundred cavalry. Adronicus
   dismissed the ambassadors, and sent an army to raise the
   siege; but his troops were defeated, and the knights took the
   city of Rhodes on the 15th August, 1310. As sovereigns of this
   beautiful island, they were long the bulwark of Christian
   Europe against the Turkish power; and the memory of the
   chivalrous youth who for successive ages found an early tomb
   at this verge of the Christian world, will long shed a
   romantic colouring on the history of Rhodes. They sustained
   the declining glory of a state of society that was hastening
   to become a vision of the past; they were the heroes of a
   class of which the Norse sea-kings had been the demigods. The
   little realm they governed as an independent state consisted
   of Rhodes, with the neighbouring islands of Kos, Kalymnos,
   Syme, Leros, Nisyros, Telos, and Chalke; on the opposite
   continent they possessed the classic city of Halicarnassus,
   and several strong forts, of which the picturesque ruins still
   overhang the sea."

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
      book 4, chapter 2 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      W. Porter,
      History of the Knights of Malta,
      chapters 7-10 (volume 1).

   Treatment of the Turkish Prince Jemshid or Zizim.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

   Siege and surrender of Rhodes to the Turks

   In 1522, the Turkish sultan, Solyman the Magnificent, "turned
   his victorious arms against the island of Rhodes, the seat at
   that time of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. This small
   state he attacked with such a numerous army as the lords of
   Asia have been accustomed, in every age, to bring into the
   field. Two hundred thousand men, and a fleet of 400 sail,
   appeared against a town defended by a garrison consisting of
   5,000 soldiers and 600 knights, under the command of Villiers
   de L'Isle Adam, the grand-master, whose wisdom and valour
   rendered him worthy of that station at such a dangerous
   No sooner did he begin to suspect the destination of Solyman's
   vast armaments than he despatched messengers to all the
   Christian courts, imploring their aid against the common
   enemy. But though every prince in that age acknowledged Rhodes
   to be the great bulwark of Christendom in the East, and
   trusted to the gallantry of its knights as the best security
   against the progress of the Ottoman arms,—though Adrian,
   with a zeal which became the head and father of the Church,
   exhorted the contending powers to forget their private
   quarrels, and, by uniting their arms, to prevent the infidels
   from destroying a society which did honour to the Christian
   name,—yet so violent and implacable was the animosity of both
   parties [in the wars of the Emperor Charles V. and Francis I.
   of France], that, regardless of the danger to which they
   exposed all Europe, … they suffered Solyman to carry on his
   operations against Rhodes without disturbance. The
   grand-master, after incredible efforts of courage, of
   patience, and of military conduct, during a siege of six
   months,—after sustaining many assaults, and disputing every
   post with amazing obstinacy,—was obliged at last to yield to
   numbers; and, having obtained an honourable capitulation from
   the sultan, who admired and respected his virtue, he
   surrendered the town, which was reduced to a heap of rubbish,
   and destitute of every resource. Charles and Francis, ashamed
   of having occasioned such a loss to Christendom by their
   ambitious contests, endeavoured to throw the blame of it on
   each other, while all Europe, with greater justice, imputed it
   equally to both. The emperor, by way of reparation, granted
   the Knights of St. John the small island of Malta, in which
   they fixed their residence, retaining, though with less power
   and splendour, their ancient spirit and implacable enmity to
   the infidels."

      W. Robertson,
      History of the Reign of Charles V.,
      book 2 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      C. Torr,
      Rhodes in Modern Times,
      chapter 1. 

      J. S. Brewer,
      The Reign of Henry VIII.,
      chapter 10 (volume 1).

   Occupation of Malta.
   Improvement and fortification of the island.
   The great siege.
   The Turks repelled.

   "Malta, which had been annexed by Charles [the Fifth's]
   predecessors to Sicily, had descended to that monarch as part
   of the dominions of the crown of Aragon. In … ceding it to
   the Knights of St. John, the politic prince consulted his own
   interests quite as much as those of the order. He drew no
   revenue from the rocky isle, but, on the contrary, was charged
   with its defence against the Moorish corsairs, who made
   frequent descents on the spot, wasting the country, and
   dragging off the miserable people into slavery. By this
   transfer of the island to the military order of St. John, he
   not only relieved himself of all further expense on its
   account, but secured a permanent bulwark for the protection of
   his own dominions. … In October, 1530, L'Isle Adam and his
   brave associates took possession of their new domain. … It
   was not very long before the wilderness before them was to
   blossom like the rose, under their diligent culture. Earth was
   brought in large quantities, and at great cost, from Sicily.
   Terraces to receive it were hewn in the steep sides of the
   rock; and the soil, quickened by the ardent sun of Malta, was
   soon clothed with the glowing vegetation of the South. … In
   a short time, too, the island bristled with fortifications,
   which, combined with its natural defences, enabled its
   garrison to defy the attacks of the corsair. To these works
   was added the construction of suitable dwellings for the
   accommodation of the order. But it was long after, and not
   until the land had been desolated by the siege on which we are
   now to enter, that it was crowned with the stately edifices
   that eclipsed those of Rhodes itself, and made Malta the pride
   of the Mediterranean. … Again their galleys sailed forth to
   battle with the corsairs, and returned laden with the spoils
   of victory. … It was not long before the name of the Knights
   of Malta became as formidable on the southern shores of the
   Mediterranean as that of the Knights of Rhodes had been in the
   East." At length the Turkish sultan, Solyman the Magnificent,
   "resolved to signalize the close of his reign by driving the
   knights from Malta, as he had the commencement of it by
   driving them from Rhodes," and he made his preparations on a
   formidable scale. The grand-master of Malta, Jean Parisot de
   la Valette, had his spies at Constantinople, and was not long
   in ignorance of the Turkish project. He, too, prepared himself
   for the encounter with prodigious energy and forethought. He
   addressed appeals for help to all the Christian powers. "He
   summoned the knights absent in foreign lands to return to
   Malta, and take part with their brethren in the coming
   struggle. He imported large supplies of provisions and
   military stores from Sicily and Spain. He drilled the militia
   of the island, and formed an effective body of more than 3,000
   men; to which was added a still greater number of Spanish and
   Italian troops. … The fortifications were put in repair,
   strengthened with outworks, and placed in the best condition
   for resisting the enemy. … The whole force which La Valette
   could muster in defence of the island amounted to about 9,000
   men. This included 700 knights, of whom about 600 had already
   arrived [when the siege began]. The remainder were on their
   way; and joined him at a later period of the siege." The
   Turkish fleet made its appearance on the 18th of May, 1565. It
   comprised 130 royal galleys, with fifty of lesser size, and a
   number of transports. "The number of soldiers on board,
   independently of the mariners, and including 6,000 janizaries,
   was about 30,000,—the flower of the Ottoman army. … The
   command of the expedition was intrusted to two officers. One
   of these, Piali, was the same admiral who defeated the
   Spaniards at Gelves.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

   He had the direction of the naval operations. The land forces
   were given to Mustapha, a veteran nearly 70 years of age. …
   The Turkish armada steered for the southeastern quarter of the
   island, and cast anchor in the port of St. Thomas. The troops
   speedily disembarked, and spread themselves in detached bodies
   over the land, devastating the country. … It was decided, in
   the Turkish council of war, to begin operations with the siege
   of the castle of St. Elmo"—a small but strong fort, built at
   the point of a promontory which separates Port Musiette, on
   the west, from what is now known as Valetta harbor, then
   called the Great Port. The heroic defense of St. Elmo, where a
   mere handful of knights and soldiers withstood the whole army
   and navy of the Turks for an entire month, is one of the grand
   episodes of war in the 16th century.
   The few surviving defenders were overwhelmed in the final
   assault, which took place on the 23d of June. "The number of
   Christians who fell in this siege amounted to about 1,500. Of
   these 123 were members of the order, and among them several of
   its most illustrious warriors. The Turkish loss is estimated
   at 8,000, at the head of whom stood Dragut," the famous pasha
   of Tripoli, who had joined the besiegers, with ships and men,
   and who had received a mortal wound in one of the assaults.
   After the loss of St. Elmo, "the strength of the order was …
   concentrated on the two narrow slips of land which run out
   from the eastern side of the Great Port. … The northern
   peninsula, occupied by the town of Il Borgo, and at the
   extreme point by the castle of St. Angelo, was defended by
   works stronger and in better condition than the fortifications
   of St. Elmo. … The parallel slip of land was crowned by the
   fort of St. Michael." Early in July, the Turks opened their
   batteries on both St. Angelo and St. Michael, and on the 15th
   they attempted the storming of the latter, but were bloodily
   repulsed, losing 3,000 or 4,000 men, according to the
   Christian account. Two weeks later they made a general assault
   and were again repelled. On the 25th of August, the valiant
   knights, wasted and worn with watching and fighting, were
   relieved by long-promised re-enforcements from Sicily, and the
   disheartened Turks at once raised the siege. "The arms of
   Solyman II., during his long and glorious reign, met with no
   reverse so humiliating as his failure in the siege of Malta.
   … The waste of life was prodigious, amounting to more than
   30,000 men. … Yet the loss in this siege fell most
   grievously on the Christians. Full 200 knights, 2,500
   soldiers, and more than 7,000 inhabitants,—men, women, and
   children,—are said to have perished."

      W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Philip II.,
      book 4, chapters 2-5.

      ALSO IN:
      W. Porter,
      History of the Knights of Malta,
      chapters 15-18 (volume 2).

      S. Lane-Poole,
      Story of the Barbary Corsairs,
      chapter 13.

   Decline and practical disappearance of the order.

   "The Great Siege of 1565 was the last eminent exploit of the
   Order of St. John. From that time their fame rested rather on
   the laurels of the past than the deeds of the present. Rest
   and affluence produced gradually their usual
   consequences—diminished vigour and lessened independence. The
   'esprit de corps' of the Knights became weaker after long
   years, in which there were no events to bind them together in
   united sympathies and common struggles. Many of them had
   become susceptible of bribery and petty jealousies. In 1789
   the French Revolution burst out and aroused all European
   nations to some decided policy. The Order of St. John had
   received special favours from Louis XVI., and now showed their
   grateful appreciation of his kindness by cheerfully
   contributing a large portion of their revenue to assist him in
   his terrible emergencies. For this they suffered the
   confiscation of all the property of the Order in France, when
   the revolutionists obtained supreme power."

      W. Tallack,
      section 8.

   "In September, 1792, a decree was passed, by which the estates
   and property of the Order of St. John in France were annexed
   to the state. Many of the knights were seized, imprisoned, and
   executed as aristocrats. The principal house of the Order in
   Paris, called the Temple, was converted into a prison, and
   there the unfortunate Louis XVI. and his family were
   incarcerated. The Directory also did its best to destroy the
   Order in Germany and Italy. … All this time the Directory
   had agents in Malta, who were propagating revolutionary
   doctrines, and stirring up the lowest of the people to
   rebellion and violence. There were in the island 332 knights
   (of whom many, however, were aged and infirm), and about 6,000
   troops. On June 9, 1798, the French fleet appeared before
   Malta, with Napoleon himself on board, and a few days after
   troops were landed, and began pillaging the country. They were
   at first successfully opposed by the soldiers of the Grand
   Master, but the seeds of sedition, which had been so freely
   sown, began to bear fruit, and the soldiers mutinied, and
   refused to obey their officers. All the outlying forts were
   taken, and the knights who commanded them, who were all
   French, were dragged before Napoleon. He accused them of
   taking up arms against their country, and declared that he
   would have them shot as traitors. Meanwhile sedition was
   rampant within the city. The people rose and attacked the
   palace of the Grand Master, and murdered several of the
   knights. They demanded that the island should be given up to
   the French, and finally opened the gates, and admitted
   Napoleon and his troops. After some delay, articles of
   capitulation were agreed upon, Malta was declared part of
   France, and all the knights were required to quit the island
   within three days. Napoleon sailed for Egypt on June 19,
   taking with him all the silver, gold, and jewels that could be
   collected from the churches and the treasury. … In the
   following September, 1798, Nelson besieged, and quickly
   obtained possession of the island, which has ever since
   remained in the hands of the English. In this way the ancient
   Order of St. John ceased to be a sovereign power, and
   practically its history came to an end. The last Grand Master,
   Baron Ferdinand von Hompesch, after the loss of Malta, retired
   to Trieste, and shortly afterwards abdicated and died at
   Montpelier, in 1805. Many of the knights, however, had in the
   mean time gone to Russia, and before the abdication of
   Hompesch, they elected the Emperor Paul Grand Master, who had
   for some time been protector of the Order. This election was
   undoubtedly irregular and void. By the terms of the Treaty of
   Amiens, in 1802, it was stipulated that Malta should be
   restored to the Order, but that there should be neither French
   nor English knights. But before the treaty could be carried
   into effect Napoleon returned from Elba, and war broke out
   again. By the treaty of Paris, in 1814, Malta was ceded to
   England. … In 1801, the assembly of the Knights at St.
   Petersburg … petitioned Pope Pius VII. to select a Grand
   Master from certain names which they sent. This he declined to
   do, but, some time afterwards, at the request of the Emperor
   Alexander, and the King of Naples, and without consulting the
   knights, the Pope appointed Count Giovanni di Tommasi Grand
   Master. He died in 1805, and no Grand Master has been since
   appointed. On his death-bed, Tommasi nominated the bailiff,
   Guevara Suardo, Lieutenant Master. …
   [Such] lieutenants have presided over an association of
   titular knights at Rome, which is styled 'the Sacred Council.'
   In 1814, the French knights assembled at Paris and elected a
   capitulary commission for the government of the Order. … In
   or about the year 1826, the English 'Lange' of the Order of
   the Knights of Malta was revived. … A regular succession of
   Priors has been continued to the present time [1879], and the
   Duke of Manchester is the present Prior. The members of the
   Order devote themselves to relieving the poor, and assisting

      F. C. Woodhouse,
      Military Religious Orders of the Middle Ages,
      part 1, chapter 20.

   ----------HOSPITALLERS: End--------


   "A title of Slavonic or Russian origin (Russian, Gospodin =

      J. Samuelson, Roumania,
      page 209, foot-note.


      See PEREGRINI.


      and A. D. 1486-1806;






      See LORDS, HOUSE OF.




   "No English King or Ealdorman had hitherto kept a permanent
   military force in his pay. But Cnut [or Canute, A. D.
   1018-1035] now organized a regular paid force, kept constantly
   under arms, and ready to march at a moment's notice. These
   were the famous Thingmen, the Housecarls, of whom we hear so
   much under Cnut and under his successors. … The Housecarls
   were in fact a standing army, and a standing army was an
   institution which later Kings and great Earls, English as well
   as Danish, found it to be their interest to continue. Under
   Cnut they formed a sort of military guild with the king at
   their head."

       E. A. Freeman,
       Norman Conquest,
       chapter 6, section 2,
       and appendix, note kkk (volume 1).


      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

HOUSTON, Sam, and the independence of Texas.

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.



HOWE, George Augustus, Lord, Death at Ticonderoga.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

HOWE, Richard, Admiral Lord,
and the War of the American Revolution.

      A. D. 1776 (AUGUST)

   Naval Victory (1794).

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

HOWE, General Sir William, and the War of the American

      A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY), (JUNE);
      1776-1777; 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER); 1778 (JUNE).











HUBERTSBURG, The Peace of.



      See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

   Relinquished by France to Great Britain (1713).

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

HUDSON'S VOYAGES, Explorations and Discoveries.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1607-1608, and 1609.



HUGH CAPET, King of France, A. D. 987-996.

   ----------HUGUENOTS: Start--------

   First appearance and disputed origin of the name.
   Quick formation of the Calvinistic Protestant Party in France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1528-1562.
   Ascendancy in Navarre.

      See NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1554-1565.
   Attempted colonization in Brazil and in Florida.
   The Massacre at Fort Caroline.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563, to 1567-1568.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1560-1598.
   The Wars of Religion in France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563, to 1593-1598.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1598-1599.
   The Edict of Nantes.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1598-1599.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1620-1622.
   Their formidable organization and political pretensions.
   Continued desertion of nobles.
   Leadership of the clergy.
   Revolt and unfavorable Treaty of Montpellier.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1625-1626.
   Renewed revolt.
   Second Treaty of Montpellier.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1627-1628.
   Revolt in alliance with England.
   Richelieu's siege and capture of La Rochelle.
   End of political Huguenotism in France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1661-1680.
   Revived persecution under Louis XIV.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1680.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1681-1698.
   The climax of persecution in France.
   The Dragonnades.
   The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
   The great exodus.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1702-1710.
   The Camisard uprising in the Cévennes.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.

   ----------HUGUENOTS: End--------

HULL, Commodore Isaac.—Naval exploits.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

HULL, General William, and the surrender of Detroit.


HULL: Siege by the Royalists.

   Hull, occupied by the Parliamentary forces under Lord Fairfax,
   after their defeat at Adwalton Moor, was besieged by the
   Royalists under the Earl of Newcastle, from September 2 until
   October 11, 1643, when they were driven off.

      C. R. Markham,
      Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
      chapter 12.

      See, also,


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

HULST, Battle of (1642).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.






HUMAYUN, Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1530-1556.

HUMBERT, King of Italy, A. D. 1878-.


      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1654-1658.

HUMBLEDON, Battle of.



   "The union of a number of townships for the purpose of
   judicial administration, peace, and defence, formed what is
   known as the 'hundred,' or 'wapentake'; a district answering
   to the 'pagus' of Tacitus, the 'hærred' of Scandinavia, the
   'huntari' or 'gau' of Germany. … The name of the hundred,
   which, like the wapentake, first appears in the laws of Edgar,
   has its origin far back in the remotest antiquity, but the use
   of it as a geographical expression is discoverable only in
   comparatively late evidences. The 'pagus' of the Germania sent
   its hundred warriors to the host, and appeared by its hundred
   judges in the court of the 'princeps.' The Lex Salica contains
   abundant evidence that in the fifth century the administration
   of the hundred was the chief, if not the only, machinery of
   the Frank judicial system; and the word in one form or other
   enters into the constitution of all the German nations. It may
   be regarded then as a certain vestige of primitive
   organisation. But the exact relation of the territorial
   hundred to the hundred of the Germania is a point which is
   capable of, and has received, much discussion. It has been
   regarded as denoting simply a division of a hundred hides of
   land; as the district which furnished a hundred warriors to
   the host; as representing the original settlement of the
   hundred warriors; or as composed of a hundred hides, each of
   which furnished a single warrior. The question is not peculiar
   to English history, and the same result may have followed from
   very different causes as probably as from the same causes,
   here and on the continent. It is very probable, as already
   stated, that the colonists of Britain arranged themselves in
   hundreds of warriors; it is not probable that the country was
   carved into equal districts. The only conclusion that seems
   reasonable is that, under the name of geographical hundreds,
   we have the variously sized pagi or districts in which the
   hundred warriors settled. … The hundred-gemot, or wapentake
   court, was held every month; it was called six days before the
   day of meeting, and could not be held on Sunday. It was
   attended by the lords of lands within the hundred, or their
   stewards representing them, and by the parish priest, the
   reeve, and four best men of each township. … The criminal
   jurisdiction of the hundred is perpetuated in the manorial
   court leet."

      W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 5, section 45 (volume 1).

   "By the 13th century the importance of the hundred had much
   diminished. The need for any such body, intermediate between
   township and county, ceased to be felt, and the functions of
   the hundred were gradually absorbed by the county. Almost
   everywhere in England, by the reign of Elizabeth, the hundred
   had fallen into decay. It is curious that its name and some of
   its peculiarities should have been brought to America, and
   should in one state have remained to the present day. Some of
   the early settlements in Virginia were called hundreds, but
   they were practically nothing more than parishes, and the name
   soon became obsolete, except upon the map, where we still see,
   for example, Bermuda Hundred. But in Maryland the hundred
   flourished and became the political unit, like the township in
   New England. The hundred was the militia district, and the
   district for the assessment of taxes. In the earliest times it
   was also the representative district. … The hundred had also
   its assembly of all the people, which was in many respects
   like the New England town-meeting. These hundred-meetings
   enacted by-laws, levied taxes, appointed committees, and often
   exhibited a vigorous political life. But after the Revolution
   they fell into disuse, and in 1824 the hundred became extinct
   in Maryland; its organization was swallowed up in that of the
   county. In Delaware, however, the hundred remains to this

      J. Fiske,
      Civil Government in the United States,
      chapter 4, section 1.


   The period of Napoleon's recovery of power in France, on his
   return from the Isle of Elba, and until his overthrow at
   Waterloo and final abdication, is often referred to as The
   Hundred Days.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815, to 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).


      See FRANCE: A. D.1337-1360.

   ----------HUNGARIANS: Start--------


   "Gibbon is correct in connecting the language of the
   Hungarians with that of the Finnish or Tschudish race. The
   original abode of the Hungarians was in the country called
   Ugria or Jugoria, in the southern part of the Uralian
   mountains, which is now inhabited by the Voguls and Ostiaks,
   who are the eastern branches of the Finnish race, while the
   most important of the western branches are the Finns and
   Lappes. Ugria is called Great Hungary by the Franciscan monk
   Piano Carpini, who travelled in 1426 to the court of the Great
   Khan. From Ugria the Hungarians were expelled by the Turkish
   tribes of Petcheneges and Chazars, and sought refuge in the
   plains of the Lower Danube, where they first appeared in the
   reign of the Greek Emperor Theophilus, between 829 and 842.
   They called themselves Magyars, but the Russians gave them the
   name of Ugri, as originating from Ugria; and this name has
   been corrupted into Ungri and Hungarians. Although it is
   difficult to believe that the present Magyars, who are the
   foremost people in Eastern Europe, are of the same race as the
   degraded Voguls and Ostiaks, this fact is not only attested by
   historical authority, and the unerring affinity of language;
   but, when they first appeared in the central parts of Europe,
   the description given of them by an old chronicler of the
   ninth century (quoted by Zeuss, page 746) accords precisely
   with that of the Voguls and Ostiaks."

      Dr. W. Smith,
      Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 55.

   "That a Majiar female ever made her way from the Ural
   Mountains to Hungary is more than I can find; the presumptions
   being against it. Hence it is just possible that a
   whole-blooded Majiar was never born on the banks of the
   Danube. Whether the other elements are most Turk or most
   Slavonic is more than I venture to guess."

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

   "According to their own primitive traditions, the ruling
   caste, the main body of the nation, were the children of Mogor
   the son of Magog. The Hebrew name Mogor signifies 'Terror';
   and slightly varied by the Orientals into Magyar became the
   rallying cry of the once-splendid Hungarian nationality."

      Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      A. J. Patterson,
      The Magyars,
      volume 1, chapter 1.


   Ravages in Europe and settlement in Hungary.

   "The Magyars (the idiomatic synonym for Hungarians, and
   probably the proper name of one of their tribes), driven by
   internal dissensions from their native deserts, found a home
   for centuries around the Caucasus and along the barren shores
   of the Wolga. About the end of the 9th century they suddenly
   struck their tents, and pressed irresistibly forward to the
   very heart of Europe. … Immediately after crossing the
   eastern frontier (A. D. 889), the Magyars elected for their
   chief Arpad, the son of Almos, who conducted them to the
   frontiers of Hungary. The latter did not survive to see the
   conquest. The whole body under Arpad's guidance consisted of
   about a million, numbering among them about 200,000 warriors,
   and divided into seven tribes, each having its chief. The
   country which they prepared to take possession of, and the
   central part of which was then called Pannonia, was broken up
   into small parts, and inhabited by races dissimilar in origin
   and language; as Sclavonians, Wallachians, a few Huns and
   Avars, as well as some Germans. … Arpad soon descended with
   his followers on those wide plains, whence Attila, four
   centuries before, swayed two parts of the globe. Most
   dexterous horsemen, armed with light spears and almost
   unerring bows, these invaders followed their leader from
   victory to victory, soon rendering themselves masters of the
   land lying between the Theiss and the Danube, carrying at the
   same time their devastations, on the one hand, to the
   Adriatic, and, on the other, towards the German frontiers.
   Having achieved the conquest, Arpad took up his residence on
   the Danubian isle, Csepel, though the seat of the court was
   Buda or Attelburg. … The love of their new dominion was far
   from curbing the passion of the Magyars for distant bloody
   adventure and plunder. The most daring deeds were undertaken
   by single chiefs, during the reign of Zoltan and his successor
   Taksony, which filled up the first part of the tenth century.
   The enervated and superstitious population of Europe thought
   the Magyars to be the scourge of God, directly dropped down
   from heaven; the very report of their approach was sufficient
   to drive thousands into the recesses of mountains and depths
   of forests, while the priests increased the common panic by
   mingling in their litanies the words, 'God preserve us from
   the Magyars.' … The irruptions of the Magyars were
   simultaneously felt on the shores of the Baltic, among the
   inhabitants of the Alps, and at the very gates of
   Constantinople. The emperors of the East and of Germany were
   repeatedly obliged to purchase momentary peace by heavy
   tributes; but Germany, as may be conceived from her
   geographical position, was chiefly exposed to the ravages of
   these new neighbours."

      E. Szabad,
      Hungary, Past and Present,
      part 1, chapter 1.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 911-936.

HUNGARIANS: A. D. 900-924.
   Ravages in Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 900-924.

HUNGARIANS: A. D. 934-955.
   Repulse from Germany.

   "The deliverance of Germany and Christendom was achieved by
   the Saxon princes, Henry the Fowler and Otho the Great, who,
   in two memorable battles, forever broke the power of the
   Hungarians." Twenty years after their defeat by Henry the
   Fowler (A. D. 934) the Hungarians invaded the empire of his
   son (A. D. 955), "and their force is defined, in the lowest
   estimate, at 100,000 horse. They were invited by domestic
   faction; the gates of Germany were treacherously unlocked, and
   they spread, far beyond the Rhine and the Meuse, into the
   heart of Flanders. But the vigour and prudence of Otho
   dispelled the conspiracy; the princes were made sensible that,
   unless they were true to each other, their religion and
   country were irrecoverably lost; and the national powers were
   reviewed in the plains of Augsburg. They marched and fought in
   eight legions, according to the division of provinces and
   tribes [Bavarians, Franconians, Saxons, Swabians, Bohemians].
   … The Hungarians were expected in the front; they secretly
   passed the Lech, a river of Bavaria that falls into the
   Danube, turned the rear of the Christian army, plundered the
   baggage, and disordered the legions of Bohemia and Swabia. The
   battle [near Augsburg, August 10, 955] was restored by the
   Franconians, whose duke, the valiant Conrad, was pierced with
   an arrow as he rested from his fatigues; the Saxons fought
   under the eyes of their king, and his victory surpassed, in
   merit and importance, the triumphs of the last two hundred
   years. The loss of the Hungarians was still greater in the
   flight than in the action; they were encompassed by the rivers
   of Bavaria; and their past cruelties excluded them from the
   hope of mercy."

      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
      chapter 55.

      ALSO IN:
      W. Menzel,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 135 (volume 1).

      Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      volume 2, pages 656-665.

      A. W. Grube,
      Heroes of History and Legend,
      chapter 8.

   ----------HUNGARIANS: End--------


      See DACIA, and PANNONIA.

   The Huns in possession.

      See HUNS.

   The Avars in possession.

      See AVARS.

HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.
   Christianization of the Magyars.
   Kingship conferred on the Duke by the Pope.
   Annexation of Croatia and conquest of Dalmatia.

   "King Geiza [of the house of Arpad—see HUNGARIANS: RAVAGES IN
   EUROPE] (972-997) was the first pacific ruler of pagan
   Hungary. … Hungary was enclosed within limits which she was
   never again able to cross, and even within these limits the
   Magyars were not the only inhabitants; in almost every part
   they were surrounded by Slavs, whose language and laws were to
   exercise over them a lasting influence, and on the southeast
   they touched on that Romance or Wallachian element which, from
   the time of the Roman colonies of Trajan, had continued to
   develop there. Numerous marriages with these neighbours
   gradually modified the primitive type of the Magyars. …
   Geiza I. had married as his second wife a sister of the duke
   of Poland, Mieczyslaw. She had been converted to Christianity,
   and, like Clotilde of France, this princess knew how to use her
   influence in favour of her religion.
   She persuaded her husband to receive the missionaries who came
   to preach the Gospel in the country of the Magyars, and
   Pilgrim, archbishop of Lorch, undertook the systematic
   conversion of the nation. The mention of him in the
   'Nibelungen Lied' in connection with Etzel (Attila), king of
   the Huns, is doubtless due to the memory of this mission. He
   sent priests from his diocese into Hungary, and in 974 he was
   able to announce to the pope 5,000 conversions. … The great
   Chekh apostle, St. Adalbert or Vojtech, bishop of Prague,
   continued the work begun by Pilgrim. About 994, he went to
   Gran (Esztergom), where the duke of Hungary then dwelt, and
   solemnly baptized the son of Geiza, to whom he gave the name
   of Stephen. Henceforth the court of the duke became the resort
   of knights from all the neighbouring countries, but especially
   from Germany, and these knights, entering into intimate
   relations with the native nobility, drew Hungary and the
   empire into still closer union. Prince Stephen, heir
   presumptive to the throne, married the princess Gisella,
   daughter of the duke of Bavaria, while one of the daughters of
   Geiza became the wife of the Polish duke Boleslaw, and another
   married Urseolus, doge of Venice. Through these alliances,
   Hungary obtained for itself a recognized place among European
   states, and the work begun so well by Geiza was completed by
   Stephen, to whom was reserved the honour of establishing the
   position of his kingdom in Europe and of completing its
   conversion. … 'Hungary became Catholic,' says a Magyar
   historian, 'not through apostolic teaching, nor through the
   invitation of the Holy See, but through the laws of king
   Stephen' (Verböczy). He was not always content to use
   persuasion alone to lead his subjects to the new faith; he
   hesitated not to use threats also. … Stephen sent an
   ambassador to Rome, to treat directly with pope Sylvester, who
   graciously received the homage done by him for his kingdom,
   and, by a letter dated the 27th of March, 1000, announced that
   he took the people of Hungary under the protection of the
   Church. By the same brief he granted the royal crown to
   Stephen. … Besides this, he conferred on him the privilege
   of having the cross always borne before him, as a symbol of
   the apostolic power which he granted to him. The authenticity
   of this pontifical letter has indeed been disputed; but,
   however that may be, the emperor of Austria, king of Hungary,
   still bears the title of Apostolic Majesty. … Under this
   great king, Hungary became a completely independent kingdom
   between the two empires of the East and West. … The laws of
   Stephen are contained in 56 articles divided into two books.
   His ideas on all matters of government are also to be found in
   the counsels which he wrote, or caused to be written, for his
   son Emerich. … The son for whom the great king had written
   his maxims died before his father, in 1031, and is honoured as
   a saint by the Church. The last years of king Stephen were
   harassed by rivalries and plots. He died on the 15th of
   August, 1038. … Stephen had chosen as his successor his
   nephew Peter, the son of the doge Urseolus." But Peter was
   driven out and sought help in Germany, bringing war into the
   country. The Hungarians chose for their king, Samuel Ala, a
   tribal chief; but soon deposed him and elected Andrew, son of
   Ladislas the Bald (1046). Andrew was dethroned by his brother
   Bela, in 1061. Both Andrew and Bela had bitter struggles with
   revived paganism, which was finally suppressed. Bela died in
   1063. "According to the Asiatic custom, which still prevails
   in Turkey, he was succeeded by his nephew Solomon. … This
   prince was only twelve years of age, and the emperor, Henry
   IV., took advantage of his youth to place him in a humiliating
   position of tutelage. … The enemies of Solomon accused him
   of being the creature of the Germans, and reproached him for
   having done homage to the emperor for a state which belonged
   to St. Peter. Pope Gregory VII., who was then struggling
   against the emperor [see PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122], encouraged
   the rebels. 'The kingdom of Hungary,' he said, owes obedience
   to none but the Church.' Prince Geiza was proclaimed king in
   the place of Solomon, but he died without having reigned. He
   was succeeded by Ladislas the Holy (1077), who was able to
   make himself equally independent of emperor and pope. … The
   dying Ladislas chose his nephew Koloman as his successor. …
   The most important act of this reign [Koloman's, 1095-1114]
   was the annexation of Croatia. In 1090, St. Ladislas had been
   elected to the throne of Croatia, and he, on his death, left
   the government of it to his nephew Almos, who very soon made
   himself unpopular. Koloman drove him out of Croatia, and had
   himself proclaimed king. He next set about the conquest of
   Dalmatia from the Venetians, seized the principal towns,
   Spalato (Spljet), Zara (Zadir), and Trogir (Trau), and granted
   them full power of self-government. Then (1102) he had himself
   crowned, at Belgrade, king of Croatia and Dalmatia. From this
   time the position of Croatia, as regarded Hungary, was very
   much the same as the position of Hungary in regard to Austria
   in later times."

      L. Leger,
      History of Austro-Hungary,
      chapters 5-6.


HUNGARY: A. D. 1096.
   Hostilities with the first Crusaders.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.
   The Golden Bull of King Bela.
   Invasion and frightful devastation by the Tartars.
   The end of the Arpad dynasty.

   "Coloman was succeeded on the throne by his son Stephen, who,
   after a short reign, was succeeded by Bela the Blind. The most
   important event of these reigns was the war with Venice about
   the possession of Dalmatia, and the annexation to the
   Hungarian crown of Rama, a part of Servia. In 1141, Geisa II.
   ascended the throne of St. Stephen. His reign was marked by
   several important events. Having entirely reduced
   Transylvania, he invited many Saxons and Flemish into his
   kingdom, some of whom settled in the Banat, in the south of
   Hungary, and others in Transylvania. In this principality the
   German settlers received from the king a separate district,
   being, besides, exempted from many taxes and endowed with
   particular privileges. … The following years of the 12th
   century, filled up by the reigns of Stephen III., Bela III.,
   and Emerick, are marked by the continuance of the Venetian
   war, but present no incidents deserving of particular notice.
   More important was the reign of Andrew II., who ascended the
   throne in 1205. …
   Andrew, by the advice of the Pope, set out with a large army
   to the Holy Land [1216—see CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229],
   nominating the Ban, called Banko, viceroy of Hungary. While
   the Hungarian king spent his time in Constantinople, and
   afterwards in operations round Mount Tabor, Hungary became a
   scene of violence and rapine, aggravated by the careless and
   unconstitutional administration of the queen's foreign
   favourites, as well as by the extortions committed by the
   oligarchy on their inferiors. Receiving no support from the
   king of Jerusalem, Andrew resolved on returning home. On his
   arrival in Hungary, he had the mortification of finding, in
   addition to a disaffected nobility, a rival to the throne in
   the person of his son Bela. As the complaints of the nobles
   became daily louder, … the king resolved to confirm the
   privileges of the country by a new charter, called The Golden
   Bull. This took place in the year 1222. The chief provisions
   of this charter were as follows:

   1st, That the states were henceforth to be annually convoked
   either under the presidency of the king or the palatine;

   2d, That no nobleman was to be arrested without being
   previously tried and legally sentenced;

   3d, That no contribution or tax was to be levied on the
   property of the nobles;

   4th, That if called to military service beyond the frontiers
   of the country, they were to be paid by the king;

   5th, That high offices should neither be made hereditary nor
   given to foreigners without the consent of the Diet.

   The most important point, however, was article 31st, which
   conferred on the nobles the right of appealing to arms in case
   of any violation of the laws by the crown. Other provisions
   contained in this charter refer to the exemption of the lower
   clergy from the payment of taxes and tolls, and to the
   determination of the tithes to be paid by the cultivators of
   the soil. … Andrew died soon after the promulgation of the
   charter, and was succeeded by his son Bela IV. The beginning
   of this prince's reign was troubled with internal dissensions
   caused by the Cumans [an Eastern tribe which invaded Hungary
   in the later half of the 11th century—see COSSACKS], who,
   after having been vanquished by St. Ladislaus, settled in
   Hungary between the banks of the Theiss and Marosch. But a
   greater and quite unexpected danger, which threatened Hungary
   with utter destruction, arose from the invasion of the
   Tartars. Their leader Batu, after having laid waste Poland and
   Silesia, poured with his innumerable bands into the heart of
   Hungary [see MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294]. Internal dissensions
   facilitated the triumph of the foe, and the battle fought on
   the banks of the river Sajo (A. D. 1241) terminated in the
   total defeat of the Hungarians. The Tartar hordes spread with
   astonishing rapidity throughout the whole country, which in a
   few weeks was converted into a chaos of blood and flames. Not
   contented with wholesale massacre, the Tartar leader devised
   snares to destroy the lives of those who succeeded in making
   their escape into the recesses of the mountains and the depths
   of the forests. Among those who perished in the battle of Sajo
   was the Hungarian chancellor, who carried with him the seal of
   state. Batu having got possession of the seal, caused a
   proclamation to be made in the name of the Hungarian king
   [calling the people back to their homes], to which he affixed
   the royal stamp. … Trusting to this appeal, the miserable
   people issued from their hiding-places, and returned to their
   homes. The cunning barbarian first caused them to do the work
   of harvest in order to supply his hordes with provisions, and
   then put them to an indiscriminate death. The king Bela, in
   the meantime, succeeded in making his way through the
   Carpathian Mountains into Austria; but instead of receiving
   assistance from the arch-duke Frederick, he was retained as a
   prisoner. Having pledged three counties of Hungary to
   Frederick, Bela was allowed to depart. … In the meantime
   Batu was as prompt in leaving Hungary, in consequence of the
   death of the Tartar khan. … Bela was succeeded on the throne
   by his son Stephen, in the year 1270." The reign of Stephen
   was short. He was followed by Ladislaus IV., who allied
   himself with Rudolph of Hapsburg in the war which overthrew
   and destroyed Ottoacer or Ottocar, king of Bohemia (see
   AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282). "The reign of this prince, called
   the Cuman, was, besides, troubled by most devastating internal
   dissensions, caused by the Cumans, whose numbers were
   continually augmented by fresh arrivals … from their own
   tribe as well as from the Tartars." Ladislaus, dying in 1290,
   was succeeded by Andrew III., the last Hungarian king of the
   house of Arpad. "This prince had to dispute his throne with
   Rudolph of Hapsburg, who coveted the crown of Hungary for his
   son Albert. The appearance, however, of the Hungarian troops
   before the gates of Vienna compelled the Austrian emperor to
   sue for peace, which was cemented by a family alliance, Andrew
   having espoused Agnes, daughter of Albert. … Nor did this
   matrimonial alliance with Austria secure peace to Hungary.
   Pope Nicholas IV. was bent upon gaining the crown of St.
   Stephen for Charles Martel, son of Charles d'Anjou of Naples,
   who put forward his claims to the Hungarian crown in virtue of
   his mother, Mary, daughter of king Stephen V.," transferring
   them at his death to Charles Robert, nephew of the king of
   Naples. Andrew III., the last Arpad, died in 1301.

      E. Szabad,
      Hungary, Past and Present,
      part 1, chapter 2.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1285.
   Wallachian struggle for independence.

      14TH-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, etc.).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.
   The House of Anjou and the House of Luxembourg.
   Conquests of Louis the Great.
   Beginning of wars with the Turks.
   The House of Austria and the disputed crown.

   On the extinction of the ancient race of kings, in the male
   line of descent, by the death of Andrew III., in 1301, the
   crown was "contested by several competitors, and at length
   fell into the hands of the House of Anjou, the reigning family
   of Naples [see ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389]. Charles
   Robert, grandson of Charles II. King of Naples, by Mary of
   Hungary, outstripped his rivals (1310), and transmitted the
   crown to his son LOUIS, surnamed the Great [1342]. This
   prince, characterized by his eminent qualities, made a
   distinguished figure among the Kings of Hungary. He conquered
   from the Venetians the whole of Dalmatia from the frontiers of
   Istria, as far as Durazzo; he reduced the princes of Moldavia,
   Wallachia, Bosnia and Bulgaria to a state of dependence; and
   at length mounted the throne of Poland, on the death of his
   uncle, Casimir the Great. Mary, his eldest daughter, succeeded
   him in the kingdom of Hungary (1382).
   This princess married Sigismund of Luxembourg [afterwards
   Emperor, 1411-1437-see GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493], who thus
   united the monarchy of Hungary to the Imperial crown. The
   reign of Sigismund in Hungary was most unfortunate. … He had
   to sustain the first war against the Ottoman Turks; and, with
   the Emperor of Constantinople as his ally, he assembled a
   formidable army, with which he undertook the siege of
   Nicopolis in Bulgaria [see TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D.
   1389-1403]. In his retreat he was compelled to embark on the
   Danube, and directed his flight towards Constantinople. This
   disaster was followed by new misfortunes. The male contents of
   Hungary offered their crown to Ladislaus, called the
   Magnanimous, King of Naples, who took possession of Dalmatia,
   which he afterwards surrendered to the Venetians. Desirous to
   provide for the defence and security of his kingdom, Sigismund
   acquired, by treaty with the Prince of Servia, the fortress of
   Belgrade (1425), which, by its situation at the confluence of
   the Danube and the Save, seemed to him a proper bulwark to
   protect Hungary against the Turks. He transmitted the crown of
   Hungary [in 1437, when he died] to his son-in-law, Albert of
   Austria, who reigned only two years."

      C. W. Koch,
      The Revolutions of Europe, period 5.

   "Albert, afterwards the Emperor Albert II., was the first
   prince of the House of Habsburg that enjoyed the crowns of
   Hungary and Bohemia, which he owed to his father-in-law, the
   Emperor Sigismund, whose only daughter, Elizabeth, he had
   married. Elizabeth was the child of Barbara von Cilly,
   Sigismund's second wife, whose notorious vices had procured
   for her the odious epithets of the 'Bad,' and the 'German
   Messalina.' Barbara had determined to supplant her daughter,
   to claim the two crowns as her dowry, and to give them, with
   her hand, to Wladislaus, the young King of Poland, who, though
   40 years her junior, she had marked out for her future
   husband. With this view she was courting the Hussite party in
   Bohemia: but Sigismund, a little before his death, caused her
   to be arrested; and, assembling the Hungarian and Bohemian
   nobles at Znaym, in Moravia, persuaded them, almost with his
   dying breath, to elect Albert as his successor. Sigismund
   expired the next day (December 9th, 1437). Albert was soon
   after recognised as king by the Hungarian diet, and
   immediately released his mother-in-law Barbara, upon her
   agreeing to restore some fortresses which she held in Hungary.
   He did not so easily obtain possession of the Bohemian crown.
   … The short reign of Albert in Hungary was disastrous both
   to himself and to the country. Previously to his fatal
   expedition against the Turks in 1439, … the Hungarian diet,
   before it would agree to settle the succession to the throne,
   forced him to accept a constitution which destroyed all unity
   and strength of government. By the famous 'Decretum Alberti
   Regis,' he reduced himself to be the mere shadow of a king;
   while by exalting the Palatine [a magistrate next to the king
   in rank, who presided over the legal tribunals, and discharged
   the functions of the king in the absence of the latter], the
   clergy, and the nobles, he perpetuated all the evils of the
   feudal system. … The most absurd and pernicious regulations
   were now adopted respecting the military system of the
   kingdom, and such as rendered it almost impossible effectually
   to resist the Turks. … On the death of Albert, Wladislaus
   [Ladislaus] III., King of Poland [the second Polish king of
   the dynasty of Jagellon], was … elected to the throne of
   Hungary. … Albert, besides two daughters, had left his wife
   Elizabeth pregnant; and the Hungarians, dreading a long
   minority in case she should give birth to a son, compelled her
   to offer her hand to Wladislaus, agreeing that the crown
   should descend to their issue; but at the same time engaging
   that if Elizabeth's child should prove a male, they would
   endeavour to procure for him the kingdom of Bohemia and the
   duchy of Austria; and that he should moreover succeed to the
   Hungarian throne in case Wladislaus had no issue by Elizabeth.
   … Scarcely had the Hungarian ambassador set off for the
   court of Wladislaus with these proposals, when Elizabeth
   brought forth a son, who, from the circumstances of his birth,
   was christened Ladislaus Posthumus. Elizabeth now repented of
   the arrangement that had been made; and the news having
   arrived that the archduke Frederick had been elected Emperor
   of Germany, she was induced to withdraw her consent to marry
   the King of Poland. Messengers were despatched to recall the
   Hungarian ambassadors; but it was too late—Wladislaus had
   accepted her hand, and prepared to enter Hungary with an army.
   … The party of the King of Poland, especially as it was
   headed by John of Hunyad, proved the stronger. Elizabeth was
   compelled to abandon Lower Hungary and take refuge at Vienna,
   carrying with her the crown of St. Stephen, which, with her
   infant son, she intrusted to the care of the Emperor Frederick
   III. (August 3rd, 1440). … In November 1442, Elizabeth and
   Wladislaus had an interview at Raab, when a peace was agreed
   upon, the terms of which are unknown; but it is probable that
   one of the chief conditions was a marriage between the
   contracting parties. The sudden death of Elizabeth, Dec. 24th,
   1442, not without suspicion of poison, prevented the
   ratification of a treaty which had never been agreeable to the
   great party led by John of Hunyad, whose recent victories over
   the Turks gave him enormous influence."

      T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      introduction (volume 1).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1364.
   Reversion of the Crown guaranteed to the House of Austria.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1381-1386.
   Expedition of Charles of Durazzo to Naples.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1444.
   Wars of Huniades with the Turks.

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

HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458.
   The minority of Ladislaus Posthumus.
   Regency of Huniades.
   His defeat of the Turks and his death.
   His son Matthias chosen king on the death of Ladislaus.

   Peace between the factions was brought about by an agreement
   that "the Polish king should retain the government of Hungary
   until Ladislaus attained his majority; that he should be
   possessed of the throne in case the young prince died without
   issue; and the compact was sealed by affiancing the two
   daughters of Elizabeth to the King of Poland and his brother
   The young Ladislaus was also acknowledged as King of Bohemia;
   and the administration during his minority vested in two
   Regents: Mainard, Count of Neuhaus, chosen on the part of the
   Catholics; and Henry Ptarsko, and after his death George
   Podiebrad, on that of the Hussites. The death of Uladislaus in
   the memorable battle of Warna again left Hungary without a
   ruler; and as Frederic III. persisted in retaining the young
   Ladislaus and the crown of St. Stephen, the Hungarians
   entrusted the government to John Corvinus Huniades, the
   redoubted defender of their country." In 1452, when the
   Emperor Frederic returned from Italy into Germany, "he found
   himself involved in a dispute with the Austrians, the
   Bohemians, and the Hungarians, in respect to the custody of
   the young Ladislaus. … As Ladislaus had now arrived at the
   age of thirteen, his subjects, but more particularly the
   Austrians, grew impatient of the detention of their sovereign
   at the imperial court. Whilst Podiebrad continued regent of
   Bohemia, and Huniades of Hungary, the affairs of Austria were
   directed by Frederic; and the unpopularity of his government
   caused a general anxiety for a change. But to give up the
   custody of his ward was contrary to the policy of the Emperor,
   and in the hope of silencing the Austrians he marched with a
   force against them. His enemies, however, proved too numerous;
   he was himself endangered by a siege in Neustadt; and
   compelled to purchase his deliverance by resigning the person
   of Ladislaus. The states of Austria, Bohemia, and Hungary then
   assembled at Vienna; Podiebrad and Huniades were confirmed in
   their regencies; and the administration of Austria, together
   with the custody of Ladislaus, was confided to his maternal
   great-uncle, Ulric, Count of Cilli. The resentment of Frederic
   does not appear to have been vehement; for in the following
   year [1453] he raised Austria to an archdutchy, and by a grant
   of especial privileges placed the Duke of the province on a
   level with the Electors. After being crowned King of Bohemia
   at Prague, Ladislaus was invited by his Hungarian subjects to
   visit that kingdom. But the Count of Cilli, jealous of the
   power of Huniades, so far worked upon the young king's mind as
   to create in him suspicions of the regent's integrity. An
   attempt was made to seize Huniades by enticing him to Vienna;
   but he eluded the snare, exposed the treachery of Ulric, and
   prevailed on Ladislaus to visit his people. At Buda, an
   apparent reconciliation took place between the count and the
   regent; but Ulric still persisted in his design of ruining the
   credit of a man whom he regarded as a dangerous rival. In the
   moment of danger, the brave spirit of Huniades triumphed over
   his insidious traducer; the siege of Belgrade by the Turks
   [1456], under Mahomed II., threw Hungary into consternation;
   the royal pupil and his crafty guardian abandoned the
   Hungarians to their fate and precipitately fled to Vienna;
   whilst Huniades was left to encounter the fury of the storm.
   … The undaunted resistance of that renowned captain
   preserved Belgrade; the Turks, after a desperate struggle,
   were compelled to abandon the siege; their loss amounted to
   30,000 men; and the Sultan himself was severely wounded [see
   TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481]. The great defender did not long
   survive his triumph; dying, soon after the retreat of the
   enemy, of a fever occasioned by his extraordinary exertions.
   Huniades left two sons, Ladislaus and Matthias Corvinus, who
   were as much the idols of their country as they were objects
   of jealousy to Ulric and the King. The latter, indeed, took
   care to treat them with every mark of external respect; but
   the injurious behaviour of the count provoked Ladislaus
   Corvinus to open violence; and, in a personal rencounter,
   Ulric received a mortal wound. Enraged at the death of his
   favourite yet dreading the vengeance of the people, King
   Ladislaus resorted to treachery; and the brothers being lured
   into his power, the younger was beheaded as a murderer [1457].
   Matthias was preserved from death by the menaces of the
   indignant Hungarians; the terrified monarch fled with his
   prisoner to Prague; and being there attacked by a malignant
   disease, was consigned to a premature grave after suffering
   for only a few hours. The death of Ladislaus Posthumus plunged
   the Emperor into new difficulties. His succession to the
   Austrian territory was opposed by his brother Albert VI.,
   whose hostility had long troubled his repose. The Bohemians
   rejected his claim to their throne, and conferred the crown on
   the more deserving Podiebrad [1458]. The Hungarians testified
   their regard for the memory of Huniades Corvinus by electing
   his son Matthias, who purchased his liberty from Podiebrad for
   40,000 ducats. Thus baffled in his views, Frederic consoled
   himself with his retention of the crown of St. Stephen; and
   his pertinacity in respect to this sacred relique involved him
   in a war with the new King of Hungary."

      Sir R. Comyn,
      History of the Western Empire,
      chapter 28 (volume 2).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1444.
   Wallachia taken from the Turks.

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

HUNGARY: A. D. 1468-1471.
   King Matthias joins the crusade against George Podiebrad of
   Bohemia and claims the Bohemian crown.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.
   The wars of Matthias with Bohemia, Poland, the emperor and the
   Conquest and occupation of Austria.

   Ladislaus, elected to the throne of Bohemia on the death of
   George Podiebrad, was supported by all the forces of his
   father, the king of Poland, and Matthias of Hungary was now
   involved in war with both. Meanwhile, "his whole kingdom was
   agitated by intestine commotions, and a strong party of nobles
   breaking out into insurrection, had offered the crown to
   Casimir, prince of Poland. At the same time, the Turks having
   subdued Transylvania, and ravaged Dalmatia and Croatia, built
   the fortress of Szabatch on the Save, and from thence harassed
   Hungary with perpetual inroads. From these impending dangers,
   Matthias extricated himself by his courage, activity, and
   prudence. While he carried the war into Bohemia and Silesia,
   he awed, by his presence, his rebellious subjects, conciliated
   by degrees the disaffected nobles, expelled the Poles, and, by
   an important victory in the vicinity of Breslau, over the
   united armies of Poles and Bohemians, forced the two
   sovereigns, in 1474, to conclude an armistice for three years
   and a half. He availed himself of the suspension of arms to
   repel the Turks. He supported Stephen Bathori, hospodar of
   Wallachia, who had shaken off the Ottoman yoke, by a
   reinforcement of troops, enabled him to defeat Mahomet himself
   [on the plain of Kenyer-Mesö, October, 1479], at the head of
   100,000 men, and soon afterwards secured his frontiers on the
   side of the Danube by the capture of Szabatch.
   Having in consequence of these successes delivered his
   dominions from the aggressions of the Turks, he hastened to
   gratify his vengeance against the emperor, whose conduct had
   afforded so many causes of complaint. After instigating
   Matthias to make war on George Podiebrad, Frederic had
   abandoned him in the midst of the contest, had refused to
   fulfil his promise of investing him with the kingdom of
   Bohemia, had concluded an alliance with the kings of Poland
   and Bohemia, and, on the 10th of June, 1477, formally
   conferred on Ladislaus the investiture of the crown."
   Matthias, as soon as he had freed himself from the Turks
   (1479), declared war against the emperor and invaded Austria.
   "Frederic, left without a single ally, was unable to make the
   smallest resistance, and in less than a month Matthias overran
   the greater part of Lower Austria, invested the capital, and
   either besieged or captured all the fortresses of the Danube,
   as far as Krems and Stein. Frederic fled in dismay to Lintz,
   and, to save his capital, was reduced to accept the conditions
   imposed by the conqueror," which included a promised payment
   of 100,000 ducats. This payment the shifty emperor evaded,
   when Matthias became involved anew, as he presently did, in
   hostilities with Bohemia and Poland. "Matthias, irritated by
   his conduct, concluded a peace with Ladislaus, by which he
   acknowledged him as king of Bohemia, and agreed that Moravia,
   Silesia, and Lusatia [which had been surrendered to him in
   1475] should revert to the crown of Bohemia, in ease of his
   death without issue. He then again invaded Austria; but his
   arms were not attended with the same rapid success as on the
   former invasion. … It was not till after a contest of four
   years, which called forth all the skill and perseverance of
   the warlike monarch and his most experienced generals, that
   they obtained possession of the capital [1485] and the
   neighbouring fortresses, and completed the subjugation of
   Lower Austria, by the capture of Newstadt, the favourite
   residence of the emperor. Frederic, driven from his hereditary
   dominions, at first took refuge at Gratz; and, on the approach
   of danger, wandered from city to city, and from convent to
   convent." After many appeals, he persuaded Albert, duke of
   Saxony, to take the field in his behalf; but Albert, with the
   small force at his command, could only retard the progress of
   the invader, and he soon concluded an armistice with him. "In
   consequence of this agreement, he [Albert of Saxony], in
   November, 1487, abandoned Austria, and Matthias was permitted
   to retain possession of the conquered territories, until
   Frederic had discharged his former engagement, and reimbursed
   the expenses of the war; should Matthias die before that
   period, these states were to revert to their sovereign."

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

HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.
   Death of Matthias.
   Election of Wladislaw, or Ladislaus, of the Polish house of
   Union of the crowns of Hungary and Bohemia.
   Loss of the Austrian provinces.
   Treaty of Succession with Maximilian.
   Insurrection of the Kurucs.
   Loss of Belgrade.
   Great Turkish invasion and ruinous battle of Mohacs.
   The end of Hungarian independence.

   "When once the archduchy of Austria was conquered, Mathias,
   who was already master of Moravia and Silesia, had in his
   power a state almost as large as the Austria of the present
   time, if we except from it Galicia and Bohemia. But his power
   had no solid foundation. While the influence of the house of
   Austria had been increased by marriage, Mathias Corvinus had
   no legitimate heir. He made several attempts to have his
   natural son, John Corvinus, born in Silesia, recognized as his
   successor; but he died suddenly (1490) at the age of 50,
   without having arranged anything definitely for the future of
   his kingdom. … Hungary reached her highest point in the
   reign of Mathias Corvinus, and from this time we shall have to
   watch her hopeless decay. The diet, divided by the ambition of
   rival barons, could decide on no national king, and so turned
   to a foreigner. Wladyslaw II., of the [Polish] house of
   Jagellon, was elected, and thus a king of Bohemia, and an old
   rival of Mathias, united the two crowns of St. Vacslav and St.
   Stephen—a union which had been so ardently hoped for by
   Mathias, and for which he had waged the miserable war against
   Bohemia. … The beginning of the new reign was not fortunate.
   Maximilian [son of the Emperor Frederic] recovered the
   Austrian provinces, and John of Poland declared war against
   his brother, Wladyslaw, and obliged him to cede part of
   Silesia to him. Maximilian invaded the west of Hungary, …
   whence he only consented to retire after Wladyslaw had agreed
   to a treaty, which secured Hungary to the house of Austria, in
   case of Wladyslaw dying without children. This treaty, in
   which the king disposed of the country without consulting the
   diet, roused universal indignation. … Meanwhile, the Turks
   thronged round the southern frontier of the kingdom. Bajazet
   II. had failed to capture Belgrade in 1492, but he could not
   be prevented from forcing his way into the valley of the Save,
   and beating the Hungarian army, which was badly paid and badly
   disciplined. … Wladyslaw had one son, Louis. Surrounded by
   the net of Austrian diplomacy, he had affianced this son in
   his cradle to Mary of Austria, the sister of Charles V., and
   later on he undertook, in defiance of public opinion, to leave
   the crown to his daughter Anne, who was, betrothed to
   Ferdinand of Austria, if Louis should die without heirs. …
   To add to the miseries of his reign, a peasant rising, a
   terrible Jacquerie, took place. … In 1513, Cardinal Bacracz
   came from Rome, bringing with him the papal bull for a crusade
   against the infidels; whereupon the peasants armed themselves,
   as if they were about to march against the Turks, and then
   turned their arms against the nobles. This terrible
   insurrection is called in Hungarian history the insurrection
   of the Kurucs (Kouroutses, cruciati) crusaders. … The chief
   leader of the insurrection, the peasant Dosza, was one of the
   Szeklers of Transylvania. … Dosza was beaten in a battle
   near Temesvar, and fell into the hands of his enemies. Their
   vengeance was terrible. The king of the peasants was seated on
   a throne of fire, and crowned by the executioner with a
   red-hot crown. He bore his frightful sufferings with a courage
   that astonished his adversaries. … The feeble Wladyslaw died
   in 1515, and the reign of the child-king, Louis II., may be
   summed up in two catastrophes, the loss of Belgrade and the
   defeat at Mohacs. The young king, married in his cradle, was
   corrupt and dissolute, and quite incapable of governing, and
   his guardians could not rise to the height of the occasion.
   The finances of the kingdom were in great disorder, and the
   leading barons quarrelled continually over the shreds of
   sovereignty still left. … This state of things was of the
   greatest use to the Turks, for while Hungary was sinking ever
   deeper into anarchy, Turkey was ruled by the great sovereign
   who was called Soliman the Magnificent. It was not long before
   he found a pretext for war in the arrest of one of his
   subjects as a spy, and assembled his troops at Sophia,
   captured Shabats [Szabatch], laid siege to Belgrade and took
   it, making it thenceforward a Mussulman fortress (1521). The
   key of the Danube was now in the hands of the Turks. … King
   Louis begged for help on every side. … The Austrian princes
   were ready to help him from interested motives; but even when
   joined with Hungary they were too feeble to conquer the armies
   of 'the Magnificent.' On the 25th of April, 1526, Soliman
   quitted Constantinople, bringing with him 100,000 men and 300
   cannon, taking up arms not only against Hungary, but against
   the empire. One of the pretexts for his expedition was the
   captivity of Francis I.; he wished, he said, to save 'the bey
   of France' from the hands of the Germans and their allies the
   Hungarians. He crossed the Save near Osiek (Essek), captured
   Petervardin, and came up with the Hungarians at Mohacs, on the
   right bank of the Danube (August 26, 1526). The Magyar army
   was commanded by the king in person, assisted by Paul Tomory,
   archbishop of Kalocsa, one of the warlike bishops of whom
   Hungary gives us so many examples; by George Szapolyai, and by
   Peter Perenyi, bishop of Nagy-Varad (Great Varadin). Perenyi
   wished to treat with the Turks, in order to gain time for help
   to reach them from Croatia and Transylvania, but the
   impetuosity of Tomory decided on immediate battle. … At
   first, it seemed as if the battle was in favour of the
   Magyars; but Soliman had commanded that the front ranks of his
   army should give way before the Hungarian cavalry, and that
   then the main body of his troops should close around them.
   When the Magyars were thus easily within reach, they were
   overwhelmed by the Turkish artillery and forced to retreat.
   They took refuge in some marshy land, in which many of them
   lost their lives. The king had disappeared; Tomory was slain;
   seven bishops, 22 barons, and 22,000 men were left upon the
   field. The road to Buda lay open before the invaders, and
   after having laid waste the whole country on their way, they
   reached the capital, where the treasures which Mathias
   Corvinus had collected in his palace and his library were
   either carried off or committed to the flames. … Then the
   tide of invasion gradually retired, leaving behind it a land
   covered with ruins. The independent existence of Hungary ended
   with Louis II."

      L. Leger,
      History of Austro-Hungary,
      chapter 15.

      ALSO IN:
      L. Felbermann,
      Hungary and its People,
      chapter 3.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.
   Election of John Zapolya to the throne.
   Rival candidacy and election of Ferdinand of Austria.
   Zapolya's appeal to the Turks.
   Great invasion by Soliman.
   Siege of Vienna.
   The sultan master of the greater part of the country.
   Progress of the Reformation.
   Soliman's last invasion.

   "No sooner was the corpse of Louis II. found lying in a marsh,
   under his mangled steed, than the necessity of speedily
   electing a new monarch was powerfully felt. Louis left no heir
   to the throne, while his wife Mary, archduchess of Austria,
   far from trying to possess herself of the helm of the state,
   was already on her way to Vienna, even before the results of
   the battle of Mohacs had become fully known. The vacant throne
   found thus an aspirant in John Zapolya, waivod of Transylvania
   and count of the Zips, who lay encamped with a mighty army at
   Szegedin, on his march to the plain of Mohacs. … The Diet,
   which met on the plain of Rakos (1526), proclaimed Zapolya
   king. … The day of coronation was soon fixed, the waivod
   receiving his royal unction at Weisenburg. Stephen Batory, the
   palatine, however, actuated by envy rather than ambition,
   first attempted to oppose to the new king the interests of the
   widow of Louis II. But the Austrian archduchess, unwilling to
   enter the field as a competitor for the crown, handed over her
   role to her brother Ferdinand I. of Austria, who was married
   to Anne, sister of the late Hungarian king. Ferdinand soon
   repaired to Presburg, a town beyond the reach of Zapolya's
   arms, where he was elected king of Hungary by an aristocratic
   party, headed by the palatine Batory, Francis Batthany, Ban of
   Croatia, and Nadasdy." After a fruitless conference between
   representatives of the rival kings, they proceeded to war.
   Zapolya was "master of the whole country, except some parts
   beyond the Danube," but he remained inactive at Buda until the
   Austrians surprised him there and forced him to evacuate the
   capital. "Not able to make head against the foreign
   mercenaries of Ferdinand, Zapolya was soon obliged to confine
   himself to the northern frontiers, till he left the kingdom
   for Poland, there to solicit help and concert measures for the
   renewal of the war (1528)." Receiving no encouragement from
   the king of Poland, Zapolya at length addressed himself to the
   great enemy of Hungary, the sultan Soliman, and there he met
   no rebuff. The Ottoman conqueror made instant preparations to
   enter Hungary as the champion of its native king. Thereupon
   "Zapolya organized a small army, and crossed the frontiers.
   His army was soon swelled to thousands, and he had possessed
   himself of the greatest part of Upper, before Soliman began to
   pour down on Lower Hungary. … Proclaiming to the people that
   his army was not come to conquer, but to assist their elected
   native king, Soliman marched onwards, took Buda, Gran, and
   Raab, all of them shamelessly given up by Ferdinand's
   mercenaries, and moved on unopposed to the walls of Vienna
   [1529]. Ferdinand, in his distress, Invoked the assistance of
   Germany; but his brother [the] emperor, as well as the Diet of
   Spires, engrossed with Luther and his followers, … were not
   forward to render their assistance. Vienna, however, though
   neglected by the German emperor, was momentarily saved by the
   advanced state of the season; for winter being at hand, the
   Turks, according to their usage at that season, took their
   way home. [The besieging army of Turks is said to have
   numbered 250,000 men; while the river swarmed with 400 Turkish
   boats. Twenty fierce assaults were made upon the defenses of
   the city, in as many days. The suburbs were destroyed and the
   surrounding country terribly ravaged.
   Before raising the siege, the baffled Turk massacred thousands
   of captives, under the walls, only carrying away into slavery
   the young and fair of both sexes. The repulse of Soliman is
   "an epoch in the history of the world."]

      Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 9. 

   … Zapolya, having taken up his position in Buda, ruled over
   the greatest part of Hungary; while Croatia submitted to
   Ferdinand. … A useless war was thus for a while carried on
   between the two rival sovereigns, in the midst of which Buda
   had to sustain a heavy siege conducted by General Roggendorf;
   but the garrison, though reduced so far as to be obliged to
   eat horseflesh, succeeded in repelling and routing the
   Austrian besiegers (1530)." Ferdinand now humbled himself to
   the sultan, beseeching his friendship and support, but in
   vain. The war of the rival kings went on until 1538, when it
   was suspended by what is known as the Treaty of Grosswardein,
   which conceded to each party possession of the parts of the
   country which he then occupied; which gave the whole to
   Zapolya if Ferdinand died without male issue, and the whole to
   Ferdinand if Zapolya died before him, even though Zapolya
   should leave an heir—but the heir, in this latter case, was
   to marry Ferdinand's daughter. This treaty produced immense
   indignation in the country. "That the never-despairing and
   ambitious Zapolya meant that step rather as a means of
   momentary repose, may safely be assumed; but the development
   of his schemes was arrested by the hand of death (1540), which
   removed the weary warrior from these scenes of blood, at the
   very moment when his ears were gladdened by the news that he
   had become the father of a son." Ferdinand now claimed the
   undivided sovereignty, according to the terms of the Treaty of
   Grosswardein; but the queen-dowager Isabella, wife of John
   Zapolya, maintained the rights of her infant son. She was
   supported by a strong party, animated and led by one George
   Martinussius, a priest of extraordinary powers. Both Ferdinand
   and Isabella appealed to the sultan, as to an acknowledged
   suzerain. He declared for young Zapolya, and sent an army to
   Buda to establish his authority, while another Turkish army
   occupied Transylvania. "Soliman soon followed in person, made
   his entry into Buda [1541], which he determined to keep
   permanently occupied during the minority of Sigismund; and
   assuring Isabella of his affection to the son of John, bade
   her retire with the child to Transylvania; a piece of advice
   which she followed not without some reluctance and distrust.
   Buda was thus henceforward governed by a pasha; the army of
   Ferdinand was ruined, and Soliman, under the title of an ally,
   became absolute lord of the country." After a few years "new
   complications and difficulties arose in Transylvania, when
   Martinussius, who was confirmed by Soliman in his capacity of
   guardian to the young Sigismund and regent of that country,
   began to excite the suspicion of queen Isabella. Ferdinand,
   aware of these circumstances, marched an army into
   Transylvania, headed by Costaldo, who was instructed to gain
   over the monk-tutor." Martinussius was won by the promise of a
   cardinal's hat; with his help the queen-dowager was coerced
   into abdicating in behalf of her son. Having brought this
   about, Ferdinand basely procured the assassination of the monk
   Martinussius. "'Far from gaining by an act that stamped his
   own name with eternal shame, Ferdinand was soon driven by the
   Turks from Transylvania, and lost even the places occupied by
   his troops in Hungary.' … Transylvania owned the sway of
   Sigismund Zapolya, while Ferdinand, in spite of the crown of
   the German empire, recently conferred upon him, … was fain
   to preserve in Hungary some small districts, contiguous to his
   Austrian dominions. … In the year 1563, Ferdinand convoked
   his party at Presburg," and prevailed upon them to go through
   the form of electing his son Maximilian to the Hungarian
   throne. "Ferdinand soon after died (1564), leaving three sons.
   Of these, Maximilian succeeded his father in Austria;
   Ferdinand inherited the Tyrol; and Charles, the youngest son,
   got possession of Styria. Maximilian, who, in addition to his
   Austrian dominions, succeeded to the throne of Bohemia and to
   that of the German empire, proved as impotent in Hungary as
   his father had been. The Pasha of Buda ruled the greater part
   of Hungary proper; Sigismund Zapolya continued to maintain his
   authority in Transylvania. … His [Maximilian's] reign left
   Hungary much the same as it was under his predecessor,
   although much credit is due to the neutral line of conduct he
   observed in regard to religious affairs. Unlike the rise and
   progress of the Reformation in the rest of Europe, religious
   reform in Hungary was rather an additional element in the
   political conflict than its originator. … By the battle of
   Mohacs, the Reformation was freed from a bigoted king and many
   persecuting prelates; while Ferdinand, conniving at the
   Protestant party in Germany, was withheld from persecuting it
   in Hungary, the more so from the dread that his rival might
   win the Protestant party to his interest. The Protestants thus
   increased in number amid the din of arms. … The sectarian
   spirit, though somewhat later than elsewhere, found also its
   way into this land of blood, and Hungary was soon possessed of
   considerable bodies of Lutherans and Calvinists, besides a
   smaller number of Anabaptists and Socinians. … Calvin's
   followers were mostly Magyars, while Lutheranism found its
   centre point in the German population of Transylvania." In
   1566, Maximilian, encouraged by some subsidies obtained from
   his German subjects, began hostilities against the Turks and
   against Sigismund in Transylvania. This provoked another
   formidable invasion by the great sultan Soliman. The progress
   of the Turk was stopped, however, at the fortress of Szigeth,
   by a small garrison of 3,000 men, commanded by Nicholas Zriny.
   These devoted men resisted the whole army of the Moslems for
   nearly an entire month, and perished, everyone, without
   surrendering their trust. Soliman, furious at the loss of
   20,000 men, and the long delay which their obstinate valor
   caused him, died of apoplexy while the siege went on. This
   brought the expedition to an end, and Maximilian "bought a new
   peace at the hands of Selim II., son of Soliman, for a tribute
   of 30,000 ducats (1567). Shortly after, Maximilian was also
   relieved of his rival, John Sigismund Zapolya, who died a
   sudden death."

      E. Szabad,
      Hungary, Past and Present,
      part 2, chapter 1.

      ALSO IN:
      R. W. Fraser,
      Turkey, Ancient and Modern,
      chapters 12-13.


HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.
   Successive disturbances in Transylvania.
   Cession of the principality to the House of Austria, and
   consequent revolt.
   Religious persecutions of Rodolph.
   Successful rebellion of Botskai.
   Continued war with the Turks.

   John Sigismond Zapolya refused at first to be included in the
   peace which Maximilian arranged with the Turks, and endeavored
   to stir up an insurrection in Hungary; but his scheme failed,
   and "he had no resource but to accept the terms of peace
   offered by Maximilian, which were advantageous to both
   parties. He engaged not to assume the title of king of
   Hungary, except in his correspondence with the Turks, and to
   acknowledge the emperor as king, his superior and master; in
   addition to Transylvania, as an hereditary principality, he
   was to retain for life the counties of Bihar and Marmarosch,
   with Crasna and Zolnok, and whatever territories he could
   recover from the Turks. In return, the emperor promised to
   confer on him one of his nieces in marriage, and to cede to
   him Oppelen in Silesia, if expelled from Transylvania. On the
   death of John Sigismond without issue male, Transylvania was
   to be considered as an elective principality, dependent on the
   crown of Hungary. The intended marriage did not take place,
   for John Sigismond dying on the 16th of March, 1571, soon
   after the peace, all his possessions in Hungary reverted to
   Maximilian. The diet of Transylvania chose Stephen Bathori,
   who had acted with great reputation as the general and
   minister of John Sigismond; and Maximilian, although he had
   recommended another person, prudently confirmed the choice.
   … The new waivode was accordingly confirmed, both by
   Maximilian and the Turks, took the oath of fidelity to the
   crown of Hungary, and continued to live on terms of friendship
   and concord with the emperor. … Maximilian being of a
   delicate constitution, and declining in health, employed the
   last years of his reign in taking precautions to secure his
   dignities and possessions for his descendants. Having first
   obtained the consent of the Hungarian states, his eldest son
   Rhodolph was, in 1572, crowned king of Hungary, in a diet at
   Presburgh." Subsequently, the election of Rhodolph by the
   Bohemian diet was likewise procured, and he was crowned king
   of Bohemia on the 22d of September, 1575. A few weeks later,
   the same son was chosen and crowned king of the Romans, which
   secured his succession to the imperial dignity. This latter
   crown fell to him the following year, when his father died.
   Educated in Spain and by the Jesuits, the new emperor was
   easily persuaded to reverse the tolerant policy of his father,
   and to adopt measures of repression and persecution against
   the Protestants, in the Austrian provinces, in Hungary and in
   Bohemia, which could not long be endured without resistance.
   "The first object of Rhodolph had been to secure his dominions
   in Hungary against the Turks. In order to diminish the
   enormous expense of defending the distant fortresses on the
   side of Croatia, he transferred that country, as a fief of the
   empire, to his uncle Charles, duke of Styria, who, from the
   contiguity of his dominions, was better able to provide for
   its security. Charles accordingly constructed the fortress of
   Carlstadt, on the Kulpa, which afterwards became the capital
   of Croatia, and a military station of the highest importance.
   He also divided the ceded territory into numerous tenures,
   which he conferred on freebooters and adventurers of every
   nation, and thus formed a singular species of military colony.
   This feudal establishment gradually extended along the
   frontiers of Sclavonia and Croatia, and not only contributed,
   at the time, to check the incursions of the Turks, but
   afterwards supplied that lawless and irregular, though
   formidable military force … who, under the names of Croats,
   Pandours, and other barbarous appellations, spread such terror
   among the enemies of Austria on the side of Europe. …
   Notwithstanding the armistice concluded with the Sultan by
   Maximilian, and its renewal by Rhodolph in 1584 and 1591, a
   predatory warfare had never ceased along the frontiers." The
   truce of 1591 was quickly broken in a more positive way by
   Sultan Amurath, whose forces invaded Croatia and laid siege to
   Siseek. They were attacked there and driven from their lines,
   with a loss of 12,000 men. "Irritated by this defeat, …
   Amurath published a formal declaration of war, and poured his
   numerous hordes into Hungary and Croatia. The two following
   years were passed in various sieges and engagements, attended
   with alternate success and defeat; but the advantage
   ultimately rested on the side of the Turks, by the capture of
   Siseck and Raab. In 1595, a more favourable though temporary
   turn was given to the Austrian affairs, by the defection of
   the prince of Transylvania from the Turks. On the elevation of
   Stephen Bathori to the throne of Poland, his brother
   Christopher succeeded him as waivode of Transylvania, and,
   dying in 1582, left an infant son, Sigismond, under the
   protection of the Porte. Sigismond, who possessed the high
   spirit and talents of his family, had scarcely assumed the
   reins of government before he liberated himself from the
   galling yoke of the Turks, and in 1595 concluded an offensive
   alliance with the house of Austria. … He was to retain
   Transylvania as an independent principality, the part of
   Hungary which he still held, and Moldavia and Wallachia. …
   The conquests of both parties were to be equally divided. …
   By this important alliance the house of Austria was delivered
   from an enemy who had always divided its efforts, and made a
   powerful diversion in favour of the Turks. Sigismond
   signalised himself by his heroic courage and military skill;
   uniting with the waivodes of Moldavia and Wallachia, he
   defeated the grand vizir, Sinan, took Turgovitch by storm, and
   drove the Turks back in disgrace towards Constantinople.
   Assisted by this diversion, the Austrians in Hungary were
   likewise successful, and not only checked the progress of the
   Turks, but distinguished their arms by the recovery of Gran
   and Vissegrad. This turn of success roused the sultan Mahomet,
   the son and successor of Amurath. … He put himself, in 1596,
   at the head of his forces, led them into Hungary, took Erlau,
   and defeating the Austrians under the archduke Maximilian, the
   lateness of the season alone prevented him from carrying his
   arms into Austria and Upper Hungary, which were exposed by the
   loss of Raab and Erlau. As Mahomet could not a second time
   tear himself from the seraglio, the war was carried on without
   vigour, and the season passed rather in truces than in action.
   But this year, though little distinguished by military events,
   was memorable for the cession of Transylvania to Rhodolph, by
   the brave yet fickle Sigismond, in exchange for the lordships
   of Ratibor and Oppelen in Silesia, with an annual pension."
   The capricious Sigismond, however, soon repenting of his
   bargain, reclaimed and recovered his Transylvanian dominion,
   but only to resign it again, in 1599, to his uncle, and again
   to repossess it. Not until 1602, after much fighting and
   disorder, was the fickle-minded and troublesome prince sent
   finally to retirement, in Bohemia. Transylvania was then
   placed under the government of the imperial general Basta.
   "His cruel and despotic administration driving the natives to
   despair, they found a chief in Moses Tzekeli, who, with other
   magnates, after ineffectually opposing the establishment of
   the Austrian government, had sought a refuge among the Turks.
   Tzekeli, at the head of his fellow exiles, assisted by bodies
   of Turks and Tartars, entered the country, was joined by
   numerous adherents, and, having obtained possession of the
   capital and the adjacent fortresses, was elected and
   inaugurated prince of Transylvania. His reign, however, was
   scarcely more permanent than that of his predecessor; for,
   before he could expel the Germans, he was, in 1603, defeated
   by the new waivode of Wallachia, and killed in the confusion
   of the battle. In consequence of this disaster, his followers
   dispersed, and Basta again recovered possession of the
   principality. During these revolutions in Transylvania,
   Hungary had been the scene of incessant warfare between the
   Austrians and the Turks, which exhausted both parties with
   little advantage to either. … Rhodolph had long lost the
   confidence of his Hungarian subjects. … He treated the
   complaints and remonstrances of his subjects with contempt and
   indifference; and the German troops being free from control,
   filled the country with devastation and pillage. While,
   however, he abandoned the civil and military affairs to
   chance, or to the will of his officers, he laboured to fetter
   his subjects with religious restrictions, and the most
   intolerant edicts were issued against the Protestants, in
   various parts of the kingdom. … The disaffected increasing
   in numbers, soon found a leader in Stephen Botskai, the
   principal magnate of Upper Hungary, uncle of Sigismond
   Bathori. … The discontents in Transylvania, arising from the
   same causes as the rebellion in Hungary, greatly contributed
   to the success of Botskai. … Being in 1604 assisted by a
   Turkish army, which the new sultan, Achmet, despatched into
   Transylvania, he soon expelled the Austrians, and was formally
   inaugurated sovereign. … But Botskai was too disinterested
   or too prudent to accept the regal dignity [as king of
   Hungary, which the grand vizier of the sultan proclaimed him].
   … He acted, however, with the same vigour and activity as if
   he had a crown to acquire; before the close of the campaign he
   conquered all Upper Hungary, almost to the walls of Presburgh;
   at the same time the Turks reduced Gran, Vissegrad and

      W. Coxe
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapters 38-42 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      J. H. Merle D'Aubigne,
      History of the Protestant Church in Hungary,
      chapters 12-20.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.
   The Turkish war.
   Great defeat at Cerestes.
   The Peace of Sitvatorok.

   'The disasters which the Turkish arms were now experiencing in
   Wallachia and Hungary made the Sultan's best statesmen anxious
   that the sovereign should, after the manner of his great
   ancestors, head his troops in person, and endeavour to give an
   auspicious change to the fortune of the war. … The
   Imperialists, under the Archduke Maximilian and the Hungarian
   Count Pfalfy, aided by the revolted princes of the Danubian
   Principalities, dealt defeat and discouragement among the
   Ottoman ranks, and wrung numerous fortresses and districts
   from the empire. The cities of Gran, Wissgrad, and Babocsa,
   had fallen; and messengers in speedy succession announced the
   loss of Ibrail, Varna, Kilic, Ismail, Silistria, Rustchuk,
   Bucharest, and Akerman. These tidings at last roused the
   monarch in his harem. … Mahomet III. left his capital for
   the frontier in the June of 1596. … The display of the
   sacred standard of the Prophet, which now for the first time
   was unfurled over a Turkish army, excited … the zeal of the
   True Believers. … The Grand Vizier, Ibrahim Pacha, Hassan
   Sokolli Pacha, and Cicala Pacha, were the principal commanders
   under the Sultan. … The Archduke Maximilian, who commanded
   the Imperialists, retired at first before the superior numbers
   of the great Ottoman army; and the Sultan besieged and
   captured Erlau. The Imperialists now having effected a
   junction with the Transylvanian troops under Prince Sigismund,
   advanced again, though too late to save Erlau; and on October
   23rd, 1596, the two armies were in presence of each other on
   the marshy plain of Cerestes, through which the waters of the
   Cincia ooze towards the river Theiss. There were three days of
   battle at Cerestes." Repeatedly, the effeminate Sultan wished
   to order a retreat, or to betake himself to flight; but was
   persuaded by his counsellors to remain on the field, though
   safely removed from the conflict. On the third day the battle
   was decided in favor of the Turks by a charge of their cavalry
   under Cicala. "Terror and flight spread through every division
   of the Imperialists; and in less than half an hour from the
   time when Cicala began his charge, Maximilian and Sigismund
   were flying for their lives, without a single Christian
   regiment keeping their ranks, or making an endeavour to rally
   and cover the retreat. 50,000 Germans and Transylvanians
   perished in the marshes or beneath the Ottoman sabre. …
   Mahomet III. eagerly returned after the battle to
   Constantinople, to receive felicitations and adulation for his
   victory, and to resume his usual life of voluptuous indolence.
   The war in Hungary was prolonged for several years, until the
   peace of Sitvatorok [November 11, 1606] in the reign of
   Mahomet's successor. … No change of importance was made in
   the territorial possessions of either party, except that the
   Prince of Transylvania was admitted as party to the treaty,
   and that province became to some extent, though not entirely,
   independent of the Ottoman Empire."

      Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 12.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1606-1660.
   The Pacification of Vienna.
   Gabriel Bethlem of Transylvania and the Bohemian revolt.
   Participation and experience in the Thirty Years War.

   In 1606, the Archduke Mathias—who had lately been appointed
   to the Governorship of Hungary, and who had been acknowledged,
   by a secret compact among the members of the Hapsburg family as
   the head of their House—arranged the terms of a peace with
   Botskai. This treaty, called the "Pacification of Vienna,"
   restored the religious toleration that had been practised by
   Ferdinand and Maximilian; provided that Mathias should be
   lieutenant-general of the kingdom; gave to Botskai the title
   of Prince of Transylvania and part of Hungary; and stipulated
   that on the failure of his male issue these territories should
   revert to the House of Austria.
   "This treaty, at last, restored peace to Hungary, but at the
   expense of her unity and independence. Some idea may be formed
   of the state of weakness and lassitude to which these long
   wars had reduced the country … by a statement of the
   divisions into which it had been split up by the various
   factions. Hungary, with Croatia, Sclavonia, and the frontiers,
   was then reckoned to cover an area of 4,427 square miles, and
   Transylvania one of 736. Of these 5,163 miles, Turkey
   possessed 1,859; Botskai in Hungary 1,346, in Transylvania
   736=2,082; [sic] and Austria only 1,222. Botskai died in 1606,
   and was succeeded by Sigismond Rakoczi, who, however, soon
   abdicated in favour of Gabriel Bathori." At this time the
   plans of the Austrian family for taking the reins of power out
   of the feeble and careless hands of the Emperor Rodolph, and
   giving them to his more energetic brother, the Archduke
   Mathias, came to a head.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1556-1609.

   Mathias "marched into Bohemia: and Rodolph, after a feeble
   resistance, found himself abandoned by all his supporters, and
   compelled to resign into the hands of Mathias Hungary, Austria
   and Moravia, and to guarantee to him the succession to the
   crown of Bohemia; Mathias in the meantime bearing the title of
   king elect of that kingdom, with the consent of the states.
   Rodolph at the same time delivered up the Hungarian regalia,
   which for some time past had been kept at Prague." Before his
   coronation, Mathias was required by the Hungarian diet to sign
   a compact, guaranteeing religious liberty; stipulating that
   the Hungarian Chamber of Finances should be independent of
   that of Austria, that all offices and employments should be
   filled by natives, and that the Jesuits should possess no real
   property in the country. The peace of the country was soon
   disturbed by another revolution in Transylvania. "Gabriel
   Bathori, who had succeeded Sigismond Bathori on the throne of
   the principality, had suffered his licentiousness to tempt him
   into insulting the wives of some of the nobles, who instantly
   fell upon him and murdered him; and in his place Gabriel
   Bethlem, a brave warrior and an able statesman, was
   unanimously elected, with the consent and approbation of the
   sultan. Under his government his dominions enjoyed a full
   measure of peace and tranquillity, and began to recover from
   the horrible devastations of preceding years. He did not,
   however, assume his dignity without dispute. Transylvania had
   been secured to the house of Austria on the death of Botskai,
   by the Pacification of Vienna, and Mathias was, of course, now
   anxious to enforce his rights, and he considered the present
   opportunity (1617) favourable, as the Turks were engaged in
   wars on the side of Asia and Poland. He therefore summoned a
   diet of the empire, to the throne of which he had succeeded in
   1612 by the death of Rodolph. … But the diet refused all
   aid," and he was forced to conclude a peace with the sultan
   for the further period of twenty years. "No mention being made
   in it of Transylvania, the rights of Gabriel Bethlem were thus
   tacitly recognised. Mathias died soon after, in 1619, leaving
   his crown to his cousin, Ferdinand II." Then followed the
   renewed attempt of an imperial bigot to crush Protestantism in
   his dominions, and the Bohemian revolt (see BOHEMIA: A. D.
   1611-1618) which kindled the flames of the "Thirty Years'
   War." Hungary and Transylvania were in sympathy with Bohemia.
   "Gabriel Bethlem entered Hungary, in answer to the call of the
   Protestants of that country, at the head of a large army—took
   Cassau, Tiernan, Newhasel, dispersed the imperial forces under
   Homonai, sent 18,000 men to enforce Count Thurn, got
   possession of Presburg by treachery, and seized upon the
   regalia." The cause of the Bohemians was lost at the battle of
   the White Mountain, before Prague; but "Gabriel Bethlem for a
   long time supported the prestige acquired by his earlier
   successes. He was proclaimed king of Hungary, and obtained
   considerable advantages over two generals of ability and
   reputation." But a treaty of peace was concluded at length,
   according to which Gabriel surrendered the crown and royal
   title, receiving the duchies of Oppelen and Ratibor in
   Silesia, and seven counties of Hungary, together with Cassau,
   Tokay, and other towns. Ferdinand promised complete toleration
   to the Protestants, but was not faithful to his promise, and
   war was soon resumed. Bethlem "collected an army of 45,000
   men, joined his forces with those of Mansfeldt, the general of
   the confederacy [the Protestant Union], after his victory over
   the imperialists at Presburg; and at the same time the Bashaw
   of Buda entered Lower Hungary at the head of a large force,
   captured various fortresses in the district of Gran, and laid
   siege to Novigrad. They were opposed by two able generals, the
   famous Wallenstein and Swartzemberg, but without checking
   their progress. Wallenstein, however, followed Mansfeldt into
   Hungary, where the two armies remained for some time inactive
   in the presence of one another; but famine, disease, and the
   approach of winter at last brought the contest to, a close.
   The king of Denmark had been defeated, and Gabriel Bethlem
   began to fear that the whole force of the Austrians would now
   be directed against him, and concluded a truce. The bashaw of
   Buda feared the winter, and followed his example; and
   Mansfeldt, finding himself thus abandoned, disbanded his

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.

   … The treaty of peace was again renewed, the truce with the
   Turks prolonged." Gabriel Bethlem, or Bethlem Gabor, died in
   1629. "The Transylvanians elected George Rakotski to fill his
   place, and during nearly four years Hungary and Transylvania
   enjoyed the blessings of peace." Then they were again
   disturbed by attempts of Ferdinand to reduce Transylvania to
   the state of an Austrian province, and by hostile measures
   against the Protestants. The latter continued after the death
   of Ferdinand II. (1637), and under his son Ferdinand III.
   Rakotski inspired an insurrection of the Hungarians which
   became formidable, and which, joining in alliance with the
   Swedes, then warring in Germany, extorted from the emperor a
   very favorable treaty of peace (1647). "At the same time
   Ferdinand caused his son of the same name, and elder brother
   of Leopold, to be elected and crowned king. During his short
   reign, the country was tranquil; but in 1654 he died, leaving
   his rights to Leopold. The reign of Leopold [1655-1697] was a
   period which witnessed events more important to Hungary than
   any which preceded it, or have followed it, save only the
   revolutionary years, 1848 and 1849.
   No monarch of the house of Austria had ever made so determined
   attacks upon Hungarian liberty, and to none did the Hungarians
   oppose a braver and more strenuous resistance. Nothing was
   left untried on the one side to overthrow the constitution;
   nothing was left untried on the other to uphold and defend

      E. L. Godkin,
      History of Hungary,
      chapters 15-17.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.
   Turkish attacks on Upper Hungary.
   The battle of St. Gothard.
   Liberation of Transylvania.
   A twenty years truce.

   "Hostilities had recommenced, in 1660, between the Ottoman
   empire and Austria, on account of Transylvania. The Turk was
   suzerain of Transylvania, and directly held Buda and the part
   of Hungary on the west and south of the Danube, projecting
   like a wedge between Upper Hungary, Styria, and Vienna. George
   Rakoczi, Prince of Transylvania, having perished in combat
   against the Sultan, his suzerain, the Turks had pursued the
   House of Rakoczi into the domains which it possessed in Upper
   Hungary. The Rakoczis, and the new prince elected by the
   Transvlvanians, Kemeni, invoked the aid of the emperor. The
   Italian, Montecuculi, the greatest military chieftain in the
   service of the House of Austria, expelled the Turks from a
   part of Transylvania, but could not maintain himself there;
   Kemeni was killed in a skirmish. The Turks installed their
   protégé, Michael Abaffi, in his place, and renewed their
   attacks against Upper Hungary (1661-1662). The secret of these
   alternations lay in the state of feeling of the Hungarians and
   Transylvanians, who, continually divided between two
   oppressors, the Turk and the Austrian, and too weak to rid
   themselves of either, always preferred the absent to the
   present master. … Religious distrust also complicated
   political distrust; Protestantism, crushed in Bohemia,
   remained powerful and irritated in Hungary. The emperor
   demanded the assistance of the Germanic Diet and all the
   Christian states against the enemy of Christianity. … Louis
   XIV., at the first request of Leopold, supported by the Pope,
   replied by offers so magnificent that they appalled the
   Emperor. Louis proposed not less than 60,000 auxiliaries, half
   to be furnished by France, half by the Alliance of the Rhine;
   that is, by the confederates of France in Germany. … The
   Emperor … would have gladly been able to dispense with the
   aid of France and his confederates; but the more pressing
   danger prevailed over the more remote. The Turks had made a
   great effort during the summer of 1663. The second of the
   Kiouprouglis, the Vizier Achmet, taking Austrian Hungary in
   the rear, had crossed the Danube at Buda with 100,000 fighting
   men, invaded the country between the Danube and the
   Carpathians, and hurled his Tartars to the doors of Presburg
   and Olmütz. Montecuculi had with great difficulty been able to
   maintain himself on the island of Schütt, a species of vast
   intrenched camp formed by nature in front of Presburg and
   Vienna. The fortified towns of Upper Hungary fell one after
   another, and the Germanic Diet, which Leopold had gone to
   Ratisbon to meet, replied with maddening dilatoriness to the
   urgent entreaties of the head of the Empire. The Diet voted no
   effective aid until February, 1664; but the Alliance of the
   Rhine, in particular, had already accorded 6,500 soldiers, on
   condition that the Diet should decide, before separating,
   certain questions relative to the interpretation of the Treaty
   of Westphalia. The Pope, Spain, and the Italian States
   furnished subsidies. Louis persisted in offering nothing but
   soldiers, and Leopold resigned himself to accept 6,000
   Frenchmen. He had no reason to repent it. … When the
   junction was effected [July, 1664], the position of the
   Imperialists was one of great peril. They had resumed the
   offensive on the south of the Danube in the beginning of the
   year; but this diversion, contrary to the advice of
   Montecuculi, had succeeded ill. The Grand Vizier had repulsed
   them, and, after carrying back his principal forces to the
   right bank of the Danube, threatened to force the passage of
   the Raab and invade Styria and Austria. The Confederate army
   was in a condition to stand the shock just at the decisive
   moment. An attempt of the Turks to cross the Raab at the
   bridge of Kerment was repulsed by Coligni [commanding the
   French], July 26, 1664. The Grand Vizier reascended the Raab
   to St. Gothard, where were the headquarters of the
   Confederates, and, on August 1, the attack was made by all the
   Mussulman forces. The janizaries and spahis crossed the river
   and overthrew the troops of the Diet and a part of the
   Imperial regiments; the Germans rallied, but the Turks were
   continually reinforced, and the whole Mussulman army was soon
   found united on the other side of the Raab. The battle seemed
   lost, when the French moved. It is said that Achmet
   Kiouprougli, on seeing the young noblemen pour forth, with
   their uniforms decked with ribbons, and their blond perukes,
   asked, 'Who are these maidens?' The 'maidens' broke the
   terrible janizaries at the first shock; the mass of the
   Turkish army paused and recoiled on itself; the Confederate
   army, reanimated by the example of the French, rushed forward
   and charged on the whole line; the Turks fell back, at first
   slowly, their faces towards the enemy, then lost footing and
   fled precipitately to the river to recross it under the fire
   of the Christians; they filled it with their corpses. The
   fatigue of the troops, the night that supervened, the waters
   of the Raab, swelled the next day by a storm, and above all
   the lack of harmony among the generals, prevented the
   immediate pursuit of the Turks, who had rallied on the
   opposite bank of the river and had preserved the best part of
   their cavalry. It was expected, nevertheless, to see them
   expelled from all Hungary, when it was learned with
   astonishment that Leopold had hastened to treat, without the
   approbation of the Hungarian Diet, on conditions such that he
   seemed the conquered rather than the conqueror. A twenty
   years' truce was signed, August 10, in the camp of the Grand
   Vizier. Transylvania became again independent under its
   elective princes, but the protégé of the Turks, Abaffi, kept
   his principality; the Turks retained the two chief towns which
   they had conquered in Upper Hungary, and the Emperor made the
   Sultan a 'present,' that is, he paid him 200,000 florins

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

      ALSO IN:
      W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 62 (volume 2).


HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.
   Increased religious persecution and Austrian oppression.
   Tekeli's revolt.
   The Turks again called in.
   Kara Mustapha's great invasion and siege of Vienna.
   Deliverance of the city by John Sobieski.

   In Hungary, "the discontent caused by the oppressive
   Government and the fanatical persecution of Protestantism by
   the Austrian Cabinet had gone on increasing. At length, the
   Austrian domination had rendered itself thoroughly odious to
   the Hungarians. To hinder the progress of Protestantism, the
   Emperor Leopold, in the excess of his Catholic zeal, sent to
   the galleys a great number of preachers and ministers; and to
   all the evils of religious persecution were added the violence
   and devastations of the generals and the German
   administrators, who treated Hungary as a conquered province.
   The Hungarians in vain invoked the charters which consecrated
   their national liberties. To their most legitimate complaints
   Leopold replied by the infliction of punishments; he spared
   not even the families of the most illustrious; several
   magnates perished by the hands of the executioner. Such
   oppression was certain to bring about a revolt. In 1668 a
   conspiracy had been formed against Leopold by certain
   Hungarian leaders, which, however, was discovered and
   frustrated; and it was not till 1677, when the young Count
   Emmerich Tekeli, having escaped from prison, placed himself at
   the head of the malcontents, that these disturbances assumed
   any formidable importance. … Tekeli, who possessed much
   military talent, and was an uncompromising enemy of the House
   of Austria, having entered Upper Hungary with 12,000 men,
   defeated the Imperial forces, captured several towns, occupied
   the whole district of the Carpathian Mountains, and compelled
   the Austrian generals, Counts Wurmb and Leslie, to accept the
   truce he offered." In 1681 the Emperor made some concessions,
   which weakened the party of independence, while, at the same
   time, the Peace of Nimeguen, with France, allowed the House of
   Austria to employ all its forces against the rebels. "In this
   conjuncture Tekeli turned for aid towards the Turks, making an
   appeal to Mahomet IV.; and after the conclusion of the Turkish
   and Russian war in 1681, Kara Mustapha [the Grand Vizier]
   determined to assist the insurgents openly, their leader
   offering, in exchange, to acknowledge the suzerainty of the
   Porte. Tekeli sought also succour from France. Louis XIV. gave
   him subsidies, solicited the Sultan to send an army into
   Hungary, and caused an alliance between the Hungarians,
   Transylvanians, and Wallachians to be concluded against
   Austria (1682). The truce concluded in 1665 between Austria
   and Turkey had not yet expired," but the Sultan was persuaded
   to break it. "The Governor of Buda received orders to support
   Tekeli, who took the title of King. … Early in the spring of
   1683 Sultan Mahomet marched forth from his capital with a
   large army, which at Belgrade he transferred to the command of
   Kara Mustapha. Tekeli formed a junction with the Turks at Essek."

      S. Menzies,
      Turkey, Old and New,
      book 2, chapter 9, section 3 (volume 1).

   "The strength of the regular forces, which Kara Mustapha led
   to Vienna, is known from the muster-roll which was found in
   his tent after the siege. It amounted to 275,000 men. The
   attendants and camp-followers cannot be reckoned; nor can any
   but an approximate speculation be made as to the number of the
   Tartar and other irregular troops that joined the Vizier. It
   is probable that not less than half a million of men were set
   in motion in this last great aggressive effort of the Ottomans
   against Christendom. The Emperor Leopold had neither men nor
   money sufficient to enable him to confront such a deluge of
   invasion; and, after many abject entreaties, he obtained a
   promise of help from King Sobieski of Poland, whom he had
   previously treated with contumely and neglect. … The Turkish
   army proceeded along the western side of the Danube from
   Belgrade, and reached Vienna without experiencing any serious
   check, though a gallant resistance was made by some of the
   strong places which it besieged during its advance. The city
   of Vienna was garrisoned by 11,000 men under Count
   Stahremberg, who proved himself a worthy successor of the
   Count Salm, who had fulfilled the same duty when the city was
   besieged by Sultan Solyman. The second siege of Vienna lasted
   from the 15th July to the 12th September, 1683, during which
   the most devoted heroism was displayed by both the garrison
   and the inhabitants. … The garrison was gradually wasted by
   the numerous assaults which it was called on to repulse, and
   in the frequent sorties, by which the Austrian commander
   sought to impede the progress of the besiegers. Kara Mustapha,
   at the end of August, had it in his power to carry the city by
   storm, if he had thought fit to employ his vast forces in a
   general assault, and to continue it from day to day, as
   Amurath IV. had done when Bagdad fell. But the Vizier kept the
   Turkish troops back out of avarice, in the hope that the city
   would come into his power by capitulation; in which case he
   would himself be enriched by the wealth of Vienna, which, if
   the city were taken by storm, would become the booty of the
   soldiery. … Sobieski had been unable to assemble his troops
   before the end of August; and, even then, they only amounted
   to 20,000 men. But he was joined by the Duke of Lorraine and
   some of the German commanders, who were at the head of a
   considerable army, and the Polish King crossed the Danube at
   Tulm, above Vienna, with about 70,000 men. He then wheeled
   round behind the Kalemberg Mountains to the north-west of
   Vienna, with the design of taking the besiegers in the rear.
   The Vizier took no heed of him; nor was any opposition made to
   the progress of the relieving army through the difficult
   country which it was obliged to traverse. On the 11th of
   September the Poles were on the summit of the Mount
   Kalemberg," overlooking the vast encampment of the besiegers.
   Sobieski "saw instantly the Vizier's want of military skill,
   and the exposure of the long lines of the Ottoman camp to a
   sudden and fatal attack. 'This man,' said he, 'is badly
   encamped: he knows nothing of war; we shall certainly beat
   him.' … The ground through which Sobieski had to move down
   from the Kalemberg was broken by ravines; and was so difficult
   for the passage of the troops that Kara Mustapha might, by an
   able disposition of part of his forces, have long kept the
   Poles in check, especially as Sobieski, in his hasty march,
   had brought but a small part of his artillery to the scene of
   action. But the Vizier displayed the same infatuation and
   imbecility that had marked his conduct throughout the
   campaign. … Unwilling to resign Vienna, Mustapha left the
   chief part of his Janissary force in the trenches before the
   city, and led the rest of his army towards the hills, down
   which Sobieski and his troops were advancing.
   In some parts of the field, where the Turks had partially
   intrenched the roads, their resistance to the Christians was
   obstinate; but Sobieski led on his best troops in person in a
   direct line for the Ottoman centre, where the Vizier's tent
   was conspicuous; and the terrible presence of the victor of
   Khoczim was soon recognised. 'By Allah! the King is really
   among us,' exclaimed the Khan of the Crimea, Selim Ghirai; and
   turned his horse's head for flight. The mass of the Ottoman
   army broke and fled in hopeless rout, hurrying Kara Mustapha
   with them from the field. The Janissaries, who had been left
   in the trenches before the city, were now attacked both by the
   garrison and the Poles and were cut to pieces. The camp, the
   whole artillery, and the military stores of the Ottomans
   became the spoil of the conquerors; and never was there a
   victory more complete, or signalised by more splendid
   trophies. The Turks continued their panic flight as far as
   Raab. … The great destruction of the Turks before Vienna was
   rapturously hailed throughout Christendom as the announcement
   of the approaching downfall of the Mahometan Empire in

      Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 16.

   "It was cold comfort to the inhabitants of Vienna, or to the
   King of Poland, to know that even if St. Stephen's had shared
   the fate of St. Sophia and become a mosque of Allah, and if
   the Polish standards had been borne in triumph to the
   Bosphorus, yet that, nevertheless, the undisciplined Ottomans
   would infallibly have been scattered by French, German and
   Swedish armies on the fields of Bavaria or of Saxony. Vienna
   would have been sacked; Poland would have been a prey to
   internal anarchy and to Tartar invasion. The ultimate triumph
   of their cause would have consoled few for their individual
   destruction. … So cool and experienced a diplomatist as Sir
   William Temple did indeed believe, at the time, that the fall
   of Vienna would have been followed by a great and permanent
   increase of Turkish power. Putting this aside, however, there
   were other results likely to spring from Turkish success. The
   Turks constantly made a powerful diversion in favour of France
   and her ambitious designs. Turkish victories upon the one side
   of Germany meant successful French aggressions upon the other,
   and Turkish schemes were promoted with that object by the
   French. … 'If France would but stand neutral, the
   controversy between Turks and Christians might soon be
   decided,' says the Duke of Lorraine. But France would not
   stand neutral."

      H. E. Malden,
      Vienna, 1683,
      chapter 1.

      ALSO IN:
      G. B. Malleson,
      The Battle-Fields of Germany,
      chapter 9.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1687.
   End of the insurrection of Tekeli.
   Bloody vengeance of the Austrian.
   The crown made hereditary in the House of Hapsburg.

   The defeat of the Turks was likewise a defeat for the
   insurgent Tekeli, or Tököli, "whom they called the king of the
   Kurucz, and after it he found himself reduced to guerilla
   warfare. The victory over the Turks was followed by the
   capture of some of the chief Magyar towns … and in the end
   [1686] Buda itself, which was at last recovered after so long
   an occupation. … Kara Mustapha attributed his defeat to
   Tököli, and had his former ally arrested and imprisoned in
   Belgrade. His captivity put an end to the party of the king of
   the Kurucz. … An amnesty was proclaimed and immediately
   afterwards violated, the Italian general, Caraffa, becoming
   the merciless executioner of imperial vengeance. He
   established a court at Éperjes, and the horrors of this
   tribunal recall the most atrocious deeds of the Spaniards in
   the Low Countries. … After having terrorized Hungary,
   Leopold thought he had the right to expect every sort of
   concession. Notwithstanding persecution, up to this date the
   monarchy had remained elective. He was determined it should
   now become hereditary; and the diet of 1687, in conformity
   with the wishes of the sovereign, made the crown hereditary in
   the male line of the house of Habsburg."

      L. Leger,
      History of Austro-Hungary,
      chapter 20.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.
   Expulsion of the Turks.
   Battle of Zenta.
   Peace of Carlowitz.

   After the great defeat of the Turks before Vienna, their
   expulsion from Hungary was only a question of time. It began
   the same autumn, in October, by the taking of Gran. In 1684,
   the Imperialists under the Duke of Lorraine captured Visegrad
   and Waitzen, but failed in a siege of Ofen, although they
   defeated a Turkish army sent to its relief in July. In 1685
   they took Neuhäusel by storm, and drove the Turks from Gran,
   which these latter had undertaken to recover. Next year they
   laid siege again to Ofen, investing the city on the 21st of
   June and carrying it by a final assault on the 2d of
   September. "Ofen, after having been held by the Porte, and
   regarded as the third city in the Ottoman Empire, for 145
   years, was restored to the sway of the Habsburgs." Before the
   year closed the Austrians had acquired Szegedin, and several
   lesser towns. The great event of the campaign of 1687 was a
   battle on the field of Mohacs, where, in 1526, the Turks
   became actual masters of Hungary, for the most part, while the
   House of Austria acquired nominally the right to its crown. On
   this occasion the fortune of 1526 was reversed. "The defeat
   became a rout as decisive against the Turks as the earlier
   battle on the same spot had proved to the Jagellons."
   Transylvania and Slavonia were occupied as the consequence,
   and Erlau surrendered before the close of the year. In 1688,
   what seemed the crowning achievement of these campaigns was
   reached in the recovery of Belgrade, after a siege of less
   than a month. A Turkish army in Bosnia was destroyed; another
   was defeated near Nissa, and that city occupied; and at the
   end of 1689 the Turks held nothing north of the Danube except
   Temeswar and Grosswardein (Great Waradein); while the
   Austrians had made extensive advances, on the south of the
   river, into Bosnia and Servia. Then occurred a great rally of
   Ottoman energies, under an able Grand Vizier. In 1690, both
   Nissa and Belgrade were retaken, and the Austrians were
   expelled from Servia. But next year fortune favored the
   Austrians once more and the Turks were severely beaten, by
   Louis of Baden, on the field of Salankament. They still held
   Belgrade, however, and the Austrians suffered heavily in
   another attempt to regain that stronghold. For several years
   little progress in the war was made on either side; until
   Prince Eugene of Savoy received the command, in 1697, and
   wrought a speedy change in the military situation.
   The Sultan, Mustapha II., had taken the Turkish command in
   person, "with the finest army the Osmanli had raised since
   their defeat at Mohacs." Prince Eugene attacked him, September
   11, at Zenta, on the Theiss, and destroyed his army almost
   literally. "When the battle ceased about 20,000 Osmanli lay on
   the ground; some 10,000 had been drowned; scarcely 1,000 had
   reached the opposite bank. There were but few prisoners.
   Amongst the slain were the Grand Vizier and four other
   Viziers. … By 10 o'clock at night not a single living
   Osmanli remained on the right bank of the Theiss. … The
   booty found in the camp surpassed all … expectations.
   Everything had been left by the terror-stricken Sultan. There
   was the treasury-chest, containing 3,000,000 piastres. … The
   cost of these spoils had been to the victors only 300 killed
   and 200 wounded. … The battle of Zenta, … regarded as part
   of the warfare which had raged for 200 years between the
   Osmanli and the Imperialists, … was the last, the most
   telling, the decisive blow." It was followed by a period of
   inaction, during which England and Holland undertook to
   mediate between the Porte and its several Christian enemies.
   Their mediation resulted in the meeting of a Congress at
   Carlowitz, or Karlowitz, on the Danube, which was attended by
   representatives of the Sultan, the Emperor, the Czar of
   Russia, the King of Poland, and the republic of Venice. "Here,
   after much negotiation, lasting seventy-two days, was
   concluded, the 26th January, 1699, the famous Peace of
   Carlowitz. The condition that each party should possess the
   territories occupied by each at the moment of the meeting of
   the congress formed its basis. By the treaty, then, the
   frontier of Hungary, which, when the war broke out, extended
   only to within a short distance of the then Turkish towns of
   Gran and Neuhäusel, was pushed forward to within a short
   distance of Temeswar and Belgrade. Transylvania and the
   country of Bacska, between the Danube and the Theiss, were
   yielded to the Emperor. To Poland were restored Kaminietz,
   Podolia, and the supremacy over the lands watered by the
   Ukraine, the Porte receiving from her in exchange, Soczava,
   Nemos, and Soroka; to Venice, who renounced the conquests she
   had made in the gulfs of Corinth and Ægina, part of the Morea,
   and almost all Dalmatia, including the towns of Castelnuovo
   and Cattaro; to Russia, the fortress and sea of Azof." By the
   Peace of Carlowitz "the Ottoman Power lost nearly one-half of
   its European dominions, and ceased to be dangerous to
   Christendom. Never more would the discontented magnates of
   Hungary be able to find a solid supporter in the sultan."

      G. B. Malleson,
      Prince Eugene of Savoy,
      chapters 2 and 4.

      ALSO IN:
      Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 17.

      See, also, on the "Holy War," or "War of the "Holy League"
      against the Turks, of which the war in Hungary formed only
      a part, the TURKS: A. D. 1684—1696.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.
   The revolt of Rakoczy and its suppression.
   The Treaty of Szathmar.
   Recovery of Belgrade and final expulsion of the Turks.
   Peace of Passarowitz.

   "The peace of Carlowitz, which disposed of the Hungarian
   territory without the will or knowledge of the Hungarian
   States, in utter contempt of repeatedly confirmed laws, was in
   itself a deep source of new discontent,—which was
   considerably increased by the general policy continually
   pursued by the Court of Vienna. Even after the coronation of
   Joseph I., a prince who; if left to himself, might have
   perhaps followed a less provoking line of conduct, Leopold,
   the real master of Hungary, did not relinquish his design of
   entirely demolishing its institutions. … The high clergy
   were ready to second any measure of the government, provided
   they were allowed full scope in their persecutions of the
   Protestants. … Scarcely had three years passed since the
   peace of Carlowitz was signed, when Leopold, just embarking in
   the war of the Spanish succession, saw the Hungarians suddenly
   rise up as one man in arms. … The head and soul of this new
   struggle in Hungary was Francis Rakoczy II., the son of Helen
   Zriny, by her first husband, after the death of whom she
   became the wife of Tököli." Rakoczy entered the country from
   Poland, with a few hundred men, in 1703, and issued a
   proclamation which brought large numbers to his support. The
   Austrian forces had been mostly drawn away, by the war of the
   Spanish succession, into Italy and to the Rhine, and during
   the first year of the insurrection the Hungarian patriot
   became master of the greater part of the country. Then there
   occurred a suspension of hostilities, while the English
   government made a fruitless effort at mediation. On the
   reopening of warfare, the Austrians were better prepared and
   more encouraged by the circumstances of the larger contest in
   which they were engaged; while the Hungarians were
   correspondingly discouraged. They had promises of help from
   France, and France failed them; they had expectations from
   Russia, but nothing came of them. "The fortune of war
   decidedly turned in favour of the imperialists, in consequence
   of which numerous families, to escape their fury, left their
   abodes to seek shelter in the national camp; a circumstance
   which, besides clogging the military movements, contributed to
   discourage the army and spread general consternation." In 1710
   Rakoczy went to Poland, where he was long absent, soliciting
   help which he did not get. "Before his departure, the chief
   command of the troops was entrusted to Karoly, who, tired of
   Rakoczy's prolonged and useless absence in Poland, assembled
   the nobles at Szathmar, and concluded, in 1711, a peace known
   as the Treaty of Szathmar. By this treaty the emperor engaged
   to redress all grievances, civil and religious, promising,
   besides, amnesty to all the adherents of Rakoczy, as well as
   the restitution of many properties illegally confiscated.
   Rakoczy protested from Poland against the peace concluded by
   Karoly; but of what effect could be the censure and
   remonstrance of a leader who, in the most critical emergency,
   had left the scene of action in quest of foreign assistance,
   which, he might have foreseen, would never be accorded. …
   After the peace of Szathmar, Hungarian history assumes a quite
   different character." Revolts are at an end for more than a
   century, and "Hungary, without producing a single man of note,
   lay in a state of deep lethargy." In 1714, the Emperor Charles
   VI. (who, as King of Hungary, was Charles III.) began a new
   war against the Porte, with Prince Eugene again commanding in
   Hungary. "The sultan Achmet III., anticipating the design of
   the imperial general [to concentrate his troops on the
   Danube], marched his army across the Save, and, as will be
   seen, to his own destruction.
   After a small success gained by Palfy, Eugene routed the Turks
   at Petervardein [August 13, 1716], and captured besides nearly
   all their artillery. Profiting by the general consternation of
   the Turks, Eugene sent Palfy and the Prince of Wurtemberg to
   lay siege to the fortress of Temesvar, which commands the
   whole Banat, and which was surrendered by the Turks after a
   heavy siege. By these repeated disasters the Mussulmans lost
   all confidence in the success of their arms; and in the year
   1717 they opened the gates of Belgrade to the imperial army.
   The present campaign paved the way for the peace of
   Passarowitz, a little town in Servia,—a peace concluded
   between the Porte and the Emperor in 1718. In virtue of the
   provisions of this treaty, the Porte abandoned the Banat, the
   fortress of Belgrade, and a part of Bosnia, on the hither side
   of the Unna, promising besides the free navigation of the
   Danube to the people of the Austrian empire."

      E. Szabad,
      Hungary, Past and Present,
      part 2, chapter 5-6.

      ALSO in:
      L. Felbermann,
      Hungary and its People,
      chapter 4.

      See, also,
      TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1739:
   Belgrade restored to the Turks.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

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

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

HUNGARY: A. D. 1740-1741.
   Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession:
   Faithlessness of Frederick the Great.
   His seizure of Silesia.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1741.
   The War of the Austrian Succession:
   Maria Theresa's appeal and the Magyar response.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1780-1790.
   Irritations of the reign of Joseph II.
   Illiberality of the Hungarian nobles.

   "The reign of Joseph II. is described by the historians of
   Hungary and Bohemia as a disastrous time for the two
   countries. Directly he ascended the throne he began to carry
   out a series of measures which deeply irritated the Magyars.
   With his philosophical ideas, the crown of Hungary was to him
   nothing more than a Gothic bauble, and the privileges of the
   nation only the miserable remains of an age of barbarism; the
   political opinions of the Hungarians were as distasteful to
   him as their customs, and he amused himself with ridiculing
   the long beards and the soft boots of the great nobles. He
   never would be crowned. He annoyed the bishops by his laws
   against convents, while his tyrannical tolerance never
   succeeded in contenting the Protestants. … On the 7th of
   April, 1784, he ordered that the holy crown should be brought
   to him in Vienna and placed in the imperial treasury. To
   confiscate this symbol of Hungarian independence was, in the
   eyes of the Magyars, an attempt at the suppression of the
   nation itself, and the affront was deeply resented. Up to this
   time the official language of the kingdom had been Latin, a
   neutral tongue among the many languages in use in the various
   parts of Hungary. Joseph believed he was proving his liberal
   principles in substituting German, and that language took the
   place of Latin. … Joseph II. soon learned that it is not
   wise to attack the dearest prejudices of a nation. The edict
   which introduced a foreign language was the signal for the new
   birth of Magyar. … At the time of the death of Joseph II.
   Hungary was in a state of violent disturbance. The 'comitat'
   of Pesth proclaimed that the rule of the Hapsburgs was at an
   end, and others threatened to do the same unless the national
   liberties were restored by the new sovereign. All united in
   demanding the convocation of the diet in order that the
   long-suppressed wishes of the people might be heard. The
   revolutionary wind which had passed over France had been felt
   even by the Magyars, but there was this great difference in
   its effect upon France and Hungary—in France, ideas of
   equality had guided the revolution; in Hungary, the great
   nobles and the squirearchy who formed the only political
   element claimed, under the name of liberties, privileges which
   were for the most part absolutely opposed to the ideas of the
   Revolution of 1789. … Among the late reforms only one had
   found favour in the eyes of the Magyars, and that was
   toleration towards Protestants, and the reason of this was to
   be found in the fact that the small landowners of Hungary were
   themselves to a large extent Protestant; yet a democratic
   party was gradually coming into existence which appealed to
   the masses. … When France declared war against Francis II.
   the Magyar nobles showed themselves quite ready to support
   their sovereign; they asked for nothing better than to fight
   the revolutionary democrats of Paris. Francis was crowned very
   soon after his accession, and was able to obtain both men and
   money from the diet; but before long, the reactionary measures
   carried by Thugut his minister, lost him all the popularity
   which had greeted him at the beginning of his reign. The
   censorship of the press, the employment of spies, and the
   persecution of the Protestants—a persecution, however, in
   which the Hungarian Catholics themselves took an active
   part—all helped to create discontent."

      L. Leger,
      History of Austro-Hungary,
      chapters 23 and 28.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1787-1791.
   War with the Turks.
   Treaty of Sistova.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1815-1844.
   The wakening of the national spirit.
   Patriotic labors of Szechenyi and Kossuth.

   "The battle of Waterloo, in 1815, put an end to the terrible
   struggle by which every country in Europe had for twenty years
   been agitated. The sovereigns of the continent now breathed
   freely … and their first act was to enter into a league
   against their deliverers, to revoke all their concessions, and
   break all their promises. … The most audacious of all those
   who joined in framing the Holy Alliance was the emperor of
   Austria. The Hungarians reminded him, in 1815, of his repeated
   promises to redress their grievances, while they were voting
   him men and money to defend his capital against the assaults
   of Napoleon. He could not deny the promises, but he
   emphatically declined to fulfil them. They asked him to
   convoke the diet, but he … determined to dispense with it
   for the future. … At last the popular ferment reached such a
   pitch, that the government found it absolutely necessary to
   yield the point in dispute. In 1825, Francis I. convoked the
   diet, and from that moment the old struggle, which the wars
   with France had suspended, was renewed. … The session was
   … rendered for ever memorable by an incident, in itself of
   trifling importance, but of vast significance when viewed in
   connexion with subsequent events.
   It was in it that Count Stephen Szechenyi made his first
   speech in the Magyar language. The life of this extraordinary
   man is more remarkable as an instance of what may be achieved
   by well-directed energy, labouring in obedience to the
   dictates of patriotism, than for any brilliant triumphs of
   eloquence or diplomacy. … He was no great orator; so that
   his influence over the Magyars—an influence such as no
   private individual has ever acquired over a people, except,
   perhaps, Kossuth and O'Connell—must be looked upon rather as
   the triumph of practical good sense and good intentions than
   of rhetorical appeals to prejudices or passion. … The first
   object to which his attention was directed was the restoration
   of the Magyar language, which, under the Germanizing efforts
   of Austria, had fallen into almost total disuse amongst the
   higher classes. He knew how intimately the use of the national
   language is connected with the feeling of nationality. … But
   the Magyar was now totally neglected by the Magyar gentlemen.
   Latin was the language of the diet, and of all legal and
   official documents, and German and French were alone used in
   good society. Szechenyi, as the first step in his scheme of
   reformation, set about rescuing it from the degradation and
   disuse into which it had fallen; and as the best of all ways
   to induce others to do a thing is to do it oneself first, he
   rose in the diet of 1825, and, contrary to previous usage,
   made a speech in Magyar. His colleagues were surprised; the
   magnates were shocked; the nation was electrified. … The
   diet sat for two years, and during the whole of that period
   Szechenyi continued his use of the native language, in which
   he strenuously opposed the designs of the court, and was soon
   considered the leader of the opposition or liberal party,
   which speedily grew up around him. His efforts were so
   successful, that before the close of the session, Francis was
   compelled to acknowledge the illegality of his previous acts,
   formally to recognize the independence of the country, and
   promise to convoke the diet at least once in every three
   years. … He [Szechenyi] soon had the satisfaction of seeing
   the Hungarian language growing to general use, but he was
   still vexed to see the total want of unity, co-operation, and
   communion which prevailed amongst the nobles, owing to the
   want of a newspaper press, or of any place of re-union where
   political subjects could be discussed amongst men of the same
   party with freedom and confidence. This he remedied by the
   establishment of the casino, at Pesth, upon the plan of the
   London clubs. He next turned his attention to the
   establishment of steam navigation on the Danube. … He …
   rigged out a boat, sailed down the Danube right to the Black
   Sea, explored it thoroughly, found it navigable in every part,
   went over to England, studied the principles of the
   steam-engine as applied to navigation, brought back English
   engineers, formed a company, and at last confounded the
   multitude of sceptics, who scoffed at his efforts, by the
   sight of a steam-boat on the river in full work. This feat was
   accomplished in October, 1830. … In the interval which
   followed the dissolution of the diet, Szechenyi still followed
   up his plan of reform with unwearied diligence, and owing to
   his exertions, a party was now formed which sought not merely
   the strict observance of the existing laws, but the reform of
   them, the abolition of the unjust privileges of the nobles,
   the emancipation of the peasantry, the establishment of a
   system of education, the equal distribution of the taxes, the
   equality of all religious sects, the improvement of the
   commercial code and of internal communication, and though
   last, not least, the freedom of the press. These projects were
   all strenuously debated, but on this occasion without any
   practical result. The next meeting was for a long time
   delayed, upon one pretext or another. At last it was convened
   in 1832, and proved in many respects one of the most important
   that had ever assembled. … The man who in future struggles
   was destined to play so prominent a part, during the whole of
   these … proceedings, was merely an intent and diligent
   looker-on. … He was a gentleman of noble origin, of course,
   but his whole fortune lay in his talents, which at that period
   were devoted to journalism—a profession which the Hungarians
   had not yet learned to estimate at its full value. He was
   still but thirty years of age, and within the diet he was
   known as a promising young man, although, amongst the world
   without, his name—the name of Louis Kossuth, which has since
   become a household word in two hemispheres—had never yet been
   heard. … Whether from the jealousy of the government or the
   apathy of the Magyars, no printed reports of the parliamentary
   proceedings had ever yet been published. … To supply this
   defect, Kossuth resolved to devote the time, which would
   otherwise have been wasted in idle listening, to carefully
   reporting everything that took place, and circulated it all
   over the country on a small printed sheet. The importance of
   the proceedings which then occupied the attention of the diet
   caused it to be read with extraordinary eagerness, and Kossuth
   rendered it still more attractive by amplifying, and often
   even embellishing, the speeches. The cabinet, however, soon
   took the alarm, and although the censorship was unknown to the
   Hungarian law, prohibited the printing and publication of the
   reports. This was a heavy blow, but Kossuth was not baffled.
   He instantly gathered round him a great number of young men to
   act as secretaries, who wrote out a great number of copies of
   the journal, which were then circulated in manuscript
   throughout Hungary. The government was completely foiled, and
   new ardour was infused into the liberal party. When the
   session was at an end he resolved to follow up his plan by
   reporting the meetings of the county assemblies, which were
   then the scenes of fiery debates. … The government stopped
   his journal in the post-office. He then established a staff of
   messengers and carriers, who circulated it from village to
   village. The enthusiasm of the people was fast rising to a
   flame. A crisis was imminent. It was resolved to arrest
   Kossuth. … He was seized, and shut up in the Neuhaus, a
   prison built at Pesth by Joseph II. He was, however, not
   brought to trial till 1839, and was then sentenced to four
   years' imprisonment. The charge brought against him was, that
   he had circulated false and inaccurate reports; but the real
   ground of offence was, as everyone knew, that he had
   circulated any reports at all. … Kossuth, after his
   liberation from prison, had taken up his abode for a short
   period at a watering place called Parad, for the purpose of
   recruiting his shattered health, and for a time wholly
   abstained from taking any part in public affairs.
   On the first of January, 1841, however, a printer in Pesth,
   named Landerer, obtained permission to publish a journal
   entitled 'Pesthi Hirlap,' or the Pesth Gazette. He offered the
   editorship to Kossuth, who accepted it, but only on condition
   that he should be perfectly untrammelled in the expression of
   his opinions. … Kossuth … soon raised the circulation of
   his paper to 10,000 copies—an immense number in a country
   where the newspaper press had hitherto hardly had a footing.
   He made vigorous onslaughts upon the privileges of the
   noblesse, and pleaded the cause of the middle and lower
   classes unanswerably. … In 1844, owing to a change of
   ministry which threw the liberals out of office, he lost the
   editorship of the Gazette; but he had kindled a flame which
   now blazed fiercely enough of itself."

      E. L. Godkin,
      History of Hungary,
      chapter 21.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1847-1849.
   The struggle for National Independence and its failure.

   "A strong spirit of nationality had been growing up for many
   years, greatly fostered by Louis Kossuth, a newspaper editor.
   The old Magyar language, which had been treated as barbarous,
   was cultivated. Books and papers were printed in the tongue,
   all with the spirit of independence as a country and a race
   apart from that of the Austrians. In November, 1847, Ferdinand
   V. had opened the Diet in person, and proposed reforms in the
   Constitution were put before him. Count Batthyani, Prince
   Esterhazy, Kossuth, and others, drew up a scheme which was
   laid before the Emperor in the April of 1848, amid the crash
   of revolutions, and was assented to by him. But the other
   tribes within the kingdom of Hungary, the Rascians and Croats,
   began to make separate demands, and to show themselves
   stronger than the Magyars and Germans scattered among them. It
   was strongly suspected that they were encouraged by the
   Austrian powers in order to break down the new Hungarian
   constitution. The Hungarian council applied to have their
   national troops recalled from Lombardy, where, under Radetzky,
   they were preserving the Emperor's power; but this could not
   be granted, and only a few foreign regiments, whom they
   distrusted, were sent them. Disturbances broke out, and at the
   same time the Wallachians in Transylvania rose, and committed
   ravages on the property of Hungarians. The confusion was
   great, for these insurgents called the constitutional
   government of Hungary rebels, and professed to be upholding
   the rights of the Emperor, and, on the other hand, the
   Hungarian government viewed them as rebels. … Meantime a
   high-spirited Croatian officer, Baron Jellachich, had been
   appointed Ban of Croatia, and collected forces from among his
   wild countrymen to put down the Hungarian rule. … Jellachich
   advanced upon Pesth, and thus showed the Government there that
   in Ferdinand's eyes they were the rebels. Batthyani resigned,
   and Kossuth set himself to raise the people. Jellachich was
   defeated, and entered the Austrian states, appearing to menace
   Vienna. The effect of this was a tremendous insurrection of
   the Viennese, who seized Latour, the minister at war, savagely
   murdered him, and hung his body, stripped naked, to a
   lamp-post. The Viennese, under the command of the Polish
   General Bern, now prepared for a siege, while Windischgrätz
   and Jellachich collected a large army of Austrians and
   Croatians, besieged the city, stormed it on the 30th of
   October, and made an entrance, when all the ringleaders of the
   rebellion were treated with great severity. Jellachich then
   prepared to lead his Croats into Hungary, which was a very
   different matter, since the constitutional government there
   had been formed under the sanction and encouragement of
   Ferdinand. Kossuth and the rest of the ministry therefore
   thought themselves justified in naming a committee of public
   safety, and voting the raising of an army of 200,000 men.
   Ferdinand V., now an old man, felt himself no longer capable
   of coping with all the discordant forces of the empire; a
   family council was held at Olmütz, whither the Court had
   retired, and it was decided that he should abdicate, and that
   his next brother, Francis Charles, should waive his right in
   favour of his son, Francis Joseph, a promising and amiable
   young man of twenty, who, it was hoped, would conciliate
   matters. On December 2d, 1848, the change was made, and the
   new Emperor put forth a proclamation, promising constitutional
   government, liberty of the press, and all that could conduce
   to true freedom, but called on all faithful subjects to
   repress the rebellions that were raging in the provinces. Both
   in Lombardy and in Hungary this was taken as defiance; indeed,
   the Magyars considered that neither the abdication of
   Ferdinand, nor the accession of Francis Joseph to their
   throne, was valid without the consent of the Diet. Prince
   Windischgrätz was sent to reduce them with a considerable
   army, while Kossuth showed remarkable ability in getting
   together supplies for the Hungarian force, which was commanded
   by Generals Bem and Görgei. The difficulties of passing the
   mountains in the winter told much against the Austrians,
   though a corps of Russians was sent to their assistance. Five
   considerable battles were fought in the early spring of 1849,
   and in April Windischgrätz was fairly driven across the Danube
   out of the country."

      C. M. Yonge,
      Landmarks of Recent History,
      chapter 3, part 5.

   "On the 4th of March [1849] a new Imperial Charter was
   promulgated at Olmütz, containing many excellent provisions,
   but having this fatal defect, that in it Hungary was merged
   completely in the Austrian Empire, and all its ancient
   institutions obliterated. On the 14th of April the Imperial
   Decree was answered by the Declaration of Independence, in
   which the Hapsburg dynasty was proclaimed to have forfeited
   all right to the Hungarian throne, and to be banished for ever
   from the country. Kossuth was appointed Governor, and a new
   Ministry was chosen, under the Premiership of M. Szemere, the
   late Minister for Home Affairs in the Batthyány Government.
   For a while the national army was victorious. … But the
   despotic princes of Europe were now recovering from the panic
   that had demoralised them and their principles in 1848; the
   time had come for absolutism to rally its forces and reassert
   itself after the old fashion. Acting on the maxim that 'La
   raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure,' the Emperor of
   Austria, after previous arrangement with his imperial brother
   in St. Petersburg, felt at liberty to disavow and ignore the
   arguments for constitutional government which had seemed so
   cogent to his predecessor. … In July the Czar's troops a
   second time entered Hungary, this time with no disavowal of
   political motives, but on the ground that His majesty, having
   always reserved to himself entire freedom of action whenever
   revolutions in neighboring States should place his own in
   danger, was now convinced that the internal security of his
   empire was menaced by what was passing and preparing in
   … In August, Gorgei, the commander-in-chief of the national
   army, who had been nominated Dictator in the place of Kossuth,
   was invested with full powers to treat for a peace, and
   instructed to act according to the best of his ability to save
   the national existence of Hungary. At Vilagós, on the 13th of
   August, the Hungarian army, by order of the new Dictator, laid
   down their arms, and surrendered—not to the Austrians, but to
   the Russian general Rudiger. Thanks to the united efforts of
   300,000 of the flower of the Austrian and Russian troops, the
   Hungarian rebellion was at an end. … General Haynau presided
   over the Bloody Assizes of Pesth and Arad, and the long roll
   of Hungarian patriots condemned to death at the hands of the
   Austrian hangman was headed by such names as Count Batthyány
   and General Damyanics, the wounded leader of the 'Redcaps,'
   the famous student brigade. Those who escaped death found a
   refuge in England, America, or Turkey, whither they carried
   with them bitter memories of wrong and suffering inflicted,
   and an undying 'love for the country of their birth. Those
   bitter memories have happily died away, under the healing
   influence of time, and still more of that great work of
   reconciliation which a wise generosity on both sides has
   effected between the two countries."

      Francis Deak,
      Hungarian Statesman: a memoir,
      chapter 14.

      See, also,
      AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1849-1850.
   Contemplated recognition of the revolutionary government by
   the United States.
   The Hülsemann Letter of Daniel Webster.

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

HUNGARY: A. D. 1849-1859.
   Completed Emancipation of the peasantry.
   Restoration of pure absolutism.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1859.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1856-1868.
   Recovery of nationality.
   Formation of the dual Austro-Hungarian empire.

   In 1856, the Emperor, Francis Joseph, "proclaimed an amnesty
   against the political offenders, and in the following year he
   decreed the restoration of their estates, and further steps
   were taken to study the wishes of the Hungarians. In 1859
   other concessions were made, notably as to provincial
   Governments in Hungary, and they were given free
   administration as to their educational and religious rites in
   the Magyar tongue. In 1860 the 'Curia Regia' were reinstated,
   and finally, in 1861, the whole Constitution was restored to
   Hungary and its dependencies, Transylvania, Croatia, and
   Slavonia. The Hungarian Parliament, which had been closed for
   so many years, reopened its gates. These concessions, however,
   did not satisfy the Magyars, who wanted perfect autonomy for
   their country. … The Hungarians refused to pay taxes, which
   therefore had to be collected by military aid. In 1865 the
   Hungarian Parliament was opened by the Emperor in person, who
   gave his assent to the Self-Government of Hungary, but further
   details had still to be arranged, and the war which broke out
   between Austria, Prussia and Italy in 1866 prevented these
   from being carried out. On the strength of the Emperor's
   promise to accede to the wishes of his Hungarian subjects, the
   Hungarians fought most bravely in Germany and in Italy for the
   Austrian cause, but the disorganized system that then existed
   in the Austrian army was the cause of their defeat, and the
   dissolution of the German confederation, over which Austria
   presided for so many years. The final result of this was that
   a perfect autonomy for Hungary was reinstated in 1867, and the
   Dual System was introduced, by which Hungary received perfect
   freedom and independence as to the administration of its
   affairs without any interference from Austria, and became, so
   to say, a partner in the newly-formed Austro-Hungarian
   Monarchy. The Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy, as also
   described in the able 'Memoir' on Francis Deák, to which Sir
   Mountstuart E. Grant-Duff wrote a preface, is constituted as

   I. The Common Ministry for the Austro-Hungarian monarchy
   consists of a Minister for Foreign Affairs, for War, and for

   II. In each half of the monarchy there is a separate Ministry
   of Worship, of Finance, Commerce, Justice, Agriculture, and
   National Defence, headed respectively by a Minister-President
   of the Council.

   III. The Lower House in the Austrian Reichsrath consists of
   353 members, in the Hungarian Diet of 444, now chosen in both
   cases by direct election.

   IV. The Delegations, composed respectively of sixty members
   from each half of the monarchy, are elected annually from
   amongst their parliamentary representatives of the majority in
   each province by the members of the two Houses of the Austrian
   and Hungarian Legislatures.

   V. The two Delegations, who meet alternately at Vienna and
   Budapest, deliberate separately, their discussions being
   confined strictly to affairs of common interest, with regard
   to which the Delegations have the right to interpellate the
   Common Minister and to propose laws or amendments. In case of
   disagreement between the two Delegations the question of
   policy at issue is discussed by an interchange of written
   messages; drawn up in the official language—German or
   Hungarian—of the Delegation sending the message, and
   accompanied by an authorized translation in the language of
   the Delegation to which it is addressed.

   VI. If, after the interchange of three successive notes, an
   agreement between the two bodies is not arrived at, the
   question is put to the vote by ballot without further debate.
   The Delegates, of whom in a plenary session there must be an
   equal number present from each Delegation, vote individually,
   the Emperor-King having the casting vote.

   VII. By virtue of the present definition of common affairs,
   the cost of the diplomatic service and the army, except the
   Honvéds (militia), is defrayed out of the Imperial revenues,
   to which Hungary contributes a proportion of 30 per 100.

   VIII. With reference to the former, it is stipulated that all
   international treaties be submitted to the two Legislatures by
   their respective Ministries; with reference to the latter,
   that whilst the appointment to the military command of the
   whole army, as also to that of the national force of Hungary,
   is in the hands of the Sovereign, the settlement of matters
   affecting the recruiting, length of service, mobilization, and
   pay of the Honvéd army (the militia) remains with the
   Hungarian Legislature.


   IX. Those matters which it is desirable should be subject to
   the same legislation, such as customs, indirect taxation,
   currency, etc., etc., are regulated by means of treaties,
   subject to the approval of the two Legislatures. In cases
   where the two parties are unable to come to an agreement, each
   retains the right to decide such questions in accordance with
   their own special interests.

   X. In common affairs, the decisions arrived at by the
   Delegations (within the scope of their powers), and sanctioned
   by the Sovereign, become thenceforth fundamental laws; each
   Ministry is bound to announce them to its respective National
   Legislature, and is responsible for their execution.

   It should be here mentioned that the late great and lamented
   Hungarian statesman, Deák, and also the late Count Beust, have
   by their personal efforts contributed a great deal to these
   concessions being granted. The Hungarian Parliament was
   reopened in 1867, and the late Count Julius Andrássy, … who
   escaped to England from the noose of the hangman, became its
   Prime Minister. … In 1868 the Emperor and Empress entered in
   great state the town of Buda, and were crowned with the
   greatest pomp with the Apostolic crown of St. Stephen."

      L. Felbermann,
      Hungary and its People,
      chapter 5.

      ALSO IN:
      Francis Deak: a memoir,
      chapters 26-31.

      Count von Beust,
      volume 2, chapter 38.

      See, also,
      AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867,

HUNGARY: A. D. 1866-1887.
   Difficulties and promises of the Austro-Hungarian empire.
   Its ambitions in southeastern Europe.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1887.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1894.
   Death of Kossuth.

   Louis Kossuth, the leader of the revolutionary movement of
   1848, died at Turin on the 20th of March, 1894, aged
   ninety-two years. He had refused to the end of his life to be
   reconciled to the Austro-Hungarian government, or to
   countenance the acceptance by the Hungarians of the dual
   nationality established by the constitution of 1867, and
   remained an exile in Italy. After his death his remains were
   brought to Budapest, and their burial, which took place on
   Sunday, April 1st, was made the occasion of a great national
   demonstration of respect.

   ----------HUNGARY: End--------


      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458;
      and TURKS (OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

HUNINGEN, Battle of.

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


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

   ----------HUNS: Start--------

HUNS, Gothic account of the.

   "We have ascertained that the nation of the Huns, who
   surpassed all others in atrocity, came thus into being. When
   Filimer, fifth king of the Goths after their departure from
   Sweden, was entering Scythia, with his people, as we have
   before described, he found among them certain sorcerer-women,
   whom they call in their native tongue Aliorumnas (or
   Al-runas), whom he suspected and drove forth from the midst of
   his army into the wilderness. The unclean spirits that wander
   up and down in desert places, seeing these women, made
   concubines of them; and from this union sprang that most
   fierce people (of the Huns) who were at first little, foul,
   emaciated creatures, dwelling among the swamps, and possessing
   only the shadow of human speech by way of language. …
   Nations whom they would never have vanquished in fair fight
   fled horrified from those frightful—faces I can hardly call
   them, but rather—shapeless black collops of flesh, with
   little points instead of eyes. No hair on their cheeks or
   chins gives grace to adolescence or dignity to age, but deep
   furrowed scars instead, down the sides of their faces, show
   the impress of the iron which with characteristic ferocity
   they apply to every male child that is born among them. …
   They are little in stature, but lithe and active in their
   motions, and especially skilful in riding, broad-shouldered,
   good at the use of the bow and arrows, with sinewy necks, and
   always holding their heads high in their pride."

      De Rebus Geticis,
      translated by T. Hodgkin in Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 1, chapter 1.

   First appearance in Europe.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 376.

HUNS: A. D. 433-453.
   The empire of Attila.

   After driving the Goths from Dacia, the terrible Huns had
   halted in their march westward for something more than a
   generation. They were hovering, meantime, on the eastern
   frontiers of the empire "taking part like other barbarians in
   its disturbances and alliances. Emperors paid them tribute,
   and Roman generals kept up a politic or a questionable
   correspondence with them. Stilicho had detachments of Huns in
   the armies which fought against Alaric; the greatest Roman
   soldier after Stilicho,—and, like Stilicho, of barbarian
   parentage,—Aetius, who was to be their most formidable
   antagonist, had been a hostage and a messmate in their camps.
   … About 433, Attila, the son of Mundzukh, like Charles the
   Great, equally famous in history and legend, became their
   king. Attila was the exact prototype and forerunner of the
   Turkish chiefs of the house of Othman. In his profound hatred
   of civilized men, in his scorn of their knowledge, their arts,
   their habits and religion, and, in spite of this, in his
   systematic use of them as his secretaries and officers, in his
   rapacity combined with personal simplicity of life, in his
   insatiate and indiscriminate destructiveness, in the cunning
   which veiled itself under rudeness, in his extravagant
   arrogance, and audacious pretensions, in his sensuality, in
   his unscrupulous and far-reaching designs, in his ruthless
   cruelty joined with capricious displays of generosity, mercy,
   and good faith, we see the image of the irreclaimable Turkish
   barbarians who ten centuries later were to extinguish the
   civilization of [eastern?] Europe. The attraction of Attila's
   daring character, and his genius for the war which nomadic
   tribes delight in, gave him absolute ascendency over his
   nation, and over the Teutonic and Slavonic tribes near him.
   Like other conquerors of his race, he imagined and attempted
   an empire of ravage and desolation, a vast hunting ground and
   preserve, in which men and their works should supply the
   objects and zest of the chase."

      R. W. Church,
      Beginning of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 1.


   "He [Attila] was truly the king of kings; for his court was
   formed of chiefs, who, in offices of command, had learned the
   art of obedience. There were three brothers of the race of the
   Amales, all of them kings of the Ostrogoths; Ardaric, king of
   the Gepidæ, his principal confidant; a king of the Merovingian
   Franks; kings of the Burgundians, Thuringians, Rugians, and
   Heruli, who commanded that part of their nation which had
   remained at home, when the other part crossed the Rhine half a
   century before."

      J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 7 (volume 1).

   "The amount of abject, slavish fear which this little swarthy
   Kalmuck succeeded in instilling into millions of human hearts
   is not to be easily matched in the history of our race.
   Whether he had much military talent may be doubted, since the
   only great battle in which he figured was a complete defeat.
   The impression left upon us by what history records of him is
   that of a gigantic bully, holding in his hands powers
   unequalled in the world for ravage and spoliation. … Some
   doubt has recently been thrown on the received accounts of the
   wide extent of Attila's power. … The prince who felt China
   on his left, who threatened Persepolis, Byzantium, Ravenna in
   front, who ruled Denmark and its islands in his rear, and who
   ultimately appeared in arms on the soil of Champagne on his
   right, was no minor monarch, and had his empire been as deep
   as it was widespread, he might worthily have taken rank with
   Cyrus and Alexander. At the same time it is well to remember
   that over far the larger part of this territory Attila's can
   have been only an over-lordship, Teutonic, Slavonic, and
   Tartar chieftains of every name bearing rule under him. His
   own personal government, if government it can be called, may
   very likely have been confined nearly within the limits of the
   modern Hungary and Transylvania."

      T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 2, chapter 2 (volume 2).

   "As far as we may ascertain the vague and obscure geography of
   Priscus, this [Attila's] capital appears to have been seated
   between the Danube, the Theiss [Teyss] and the Carpathian
   hills, in the plains of Upper Hungary, and most probably in
   the neighbourhood of Jazberin, Agria, or Tokay. In its origin
   it could be no more than an accidental camp, which, by the
   long and frequent residence of Attila, had insensibly swelled
   into a huge village."

      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 34.

HUNS: A. D. 441-446.
   Attila's attack on the Eastern Empire.

   Attila's first assault upon the Roman power was directed
   against the Eastern Empire. The court at Constantinople had
   been duly obsequious to him, but he found a pretext for war.
   "It was pretended that the Roman bishop of Margus had
   surreptitiously introduced himself into the sepulchre of the
   Hunnic kings and stolen from it the buried treasure. The Huns
   immediately fell upon a Roman town during the time of a fair,
   and pillaged everything before them, slaying the men and
   carrying off the women. To all complaints from Constantinople
   the answer was, "The bishop, or your lives.' The emperor
   thought, and with reason, that to give up an innocent man to
   be massacred would be displeasing to Heaven, would alienate
   the clergy, and only appease for a moment the demands of his
   merciless enemy. He refused, though timidly and in vague
   terms. The Huns replied by scouring Pannonia, laying Sirmium,
   its capital, in ruins, and extending their ravages far south
   of the Danube to the cities of Naissa and Sardica, upon both
   of which they wrought the extremity of their vengeance. A
   truce of four years only increased their fury and aggravated
   its effects. The war was suddenly recommenced. This time they
   reached Thessaly, and renewed with a somewhat similar result
   the far-famed passage of Thermopylæ by the hordes of Xerxes.
   Two Roman armies were put to complete rout, and seventy cities
   levelled to the ground. Theodosius purchased the redemption of
   his capital by the cession of territory extending for fifteen
   days' journey south of the Danube, by an immediate payment of
   6,000 pounds of gold, and the promise of 2,000 more as an
   annual tribute."

      J. G. Sheppard,
      Fall of Rome,
      lecture 4.

HUNS: A. D. 451.
   Attila's invasion of Gaul.

   In the spring of the year 451 Attila moved the great host
   which he had assembled in the Hungarian plains westward toward
   the Rhine and the provinces of Gaul. He hesitated, it was
   said, between the Eastern and Western Empires as the objects
   of his attack. But the East had found an emperor, at last, in
   Marcian, who put some courage into the state,—who refused
   tribute to the insolent Hun and showed a willingness for war.
   The West, under Valentinian III. and his mother Placidia, with
   the Goths, Vandals, Burgundians and Franks in the heart of its
   provinces, seemed to offer the most inviting field of
   conquest. Hence Attila turned his horses and their savage
   riders to the West. "The kings and nations of Germany and
   Scythia, from the Volga perhaps to the Danube, obeyed the
   warlike summons of Attila. From the royal village in the
   plains of Hungary his standard moved towards the West, and
   after a march of seven or eight hundred miles he reached the
   conflux of the Rhine and the Neckar, where he was joined by
   the Franks who adhered to his ally, the elder of the sons of
   Clodion. … The Hercynian forest supplied materials for a
   bridge of boats, and the hostile myriads were poured with
   resistless violence into the Belgic provinces." At Metz, the
   Huns "involved in a promiscuous massacre the priests who
   served at the altar and the infants who, in the hour of
   danger, had been providently baptized by the bishop; the
   flourishing city was delivered to the flames, and a solitary
   chapel of St. Stephen marked the place where it formerly
   stood. From the Rhine and the Moselle, Attila advanced into
   the heart of Gaul, crossed the Seine at Auxerre, and, after a
   long and laborious march, fixed his camp under the walls of

      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 35.

   Meantime the energy of the unscrupulous but able Count Aetius,
   who ruled the court and commanded the resources of the Western
   Empire, had brought about a general combination of the
   barbarian forces in Gaul with those of the Romans. It
   included, first in importance, the Goths of the kingdom of
   Toulouse, under their king Theodoric, and with them the
   Burgundians, the Alans, a part of the Franks, and detachments
   of Saxons, Armoricans and other tribes. There were Goths, too,
   and Franks and Burgundians in the host of the Hun king. The
   latter laid siege to Orleans and the walls of the brave city
   were already crumbling under his battering rams when the
   banners of Aetius and Theodoric came in sight. Attila
   retreated beyond the Seine and took a position somewhere
   within the wide extent of what were anciently called the
   Catalaunian fields, now known as the Champagn country
   surrounding Chalons. There, in the early days of July, A. D.
   451, was fought the great and terrible battle which rescued
   Europe from the all-conquering Tartar.
   The number of the slain, according to one chronicler, was 162,000;
   according to others 300,000. Neither army could claim a
   victory; both feared to renew the engagement. The Goths, whose
   king Theodoric was slain, withdrew in one direction, to their
   own territory; the Huns retreated in the other direction and
   quitted Gaul forever. The wily Roman, Aetins, was probably
   best satisfied with a result which crippled both Goth and Hun.
   As for the battle, its latest historian says: "Posterity has
   chosen to call it the battle of Chalons, but there is good
   reason to think that it was fought fifty miles distant from
   Chalons-sur-Marne, and that it would be more correctly named
   the battle of Troyes, or, to speak with complete accuracy, the
   battle of Mery-sur-Seine."

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

   "It was during the retreat from Orleans that a Christian
   hermit is reported to have approached the Hunnish king, and
   said to him, 'Thou art the Scourge of God for the chastisement
   of Christians.' Attila instantly assumed this new title of
   terror, which thenceforth became the appellation by which he
   was most widely and most fearfully known."

      Sir E. Creasy,
      Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World,
      chapter 6.

HUNS: A. D. 452.
   Attila's invasion of Italy.

   In the summer of 451 Attila, retreating from the bloody plain
   of Chalons, recrossed the Rhine and returned to his quarters
   in Hungary. There, through the following autumn and winter, he
   nursed his chagrin and his wrath, and in the spring of 452 he
   set his host in motion again, directing its march to the
   Julian Alps and through their passes into Italy. The city of
   Aquileia, then prominent in commerce, and prosperous and rich,
   was the first to obstruct the savage invasion. The defence of
   the city proved so obstinate that Attila was at the point of
   abandoning his siege, when a flight of storks, which his
   shrewdness construed favorably as an omen, encouraged the Huns
   to one more irresistible assault and the doomed town was
   carried by storm. "In proportion to the stubbornness of the
   defence was the severity of the punishment meted out to
   Aquileia. The Roman soldiers were, no doubt, all slain. Attila
   was not a man to encumber himself with prisoners. The town was
   absolutely given up to the rage, the lust, and the greed of
   the Tartar horde who had so long chafed around its walls. …
   When the barbarians could plunder no more, they probably used
   fire, for the very buildings of Aquileia perished, so that, as
   Jornandes tells us, in his time, a century later than the
   siege, scarcely the vestiges of it yet remained. A few houses
   may have been left standing, and others must have slowly
   gathered round them, for the Patriarch of Aquileia retained
   all through the middle ages considerable remains of his old
   ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and a large and somewhat stately
   cathedral was reared there in the eleventh century. But the
   City of the North Wind never really recovered from the blow.
   … The terrible invaders, made more wrathful and more
   terrible by the resistance of Aquileia, streamed on through
   the trembling cities of Venetia." Patavium (modern Padua),
   Altinum and Julia Concordia, were blotted out of existence. At
   Vicenza, Verona, Brescia, Bergamo, Pavia and Milan, the towns
   were sacked, but spared destruction, and the inhabitants who
   did not escape were carried away into captivity. Many of the
   fugitives from these towns escaped the Huns by hiding in the
   islands and fens of the neighboring Adriatic coast, and out of
   the poor fishing villages that they formed there grew, in
   time, the great commercial city and republic of Venice. "The
   valley of the Po was now wasted to the heart's content of the
   invaders. Should they cross the Appennines and blot out Rome
   as they had blotted out Aquileia from among the cities of the
   world? This was the great question that was being debated in
   the Hunnish camp, and strange to say, the voices were not all
   for war. Already Italy began to strike that strange awe into
   the hearts of her northern conquerors which so often in later
   ages has been her best defence. The remembrance of Alaric, cut
   off by a mysterious death immediately after his capture of
   Rome, was present in the mind of Attila, and was frequently
   insisted upon by his counsellors." So, the grim Hun was
   prepared by his superstitions to listen to the embassy from
   Rome which met him at the Ticino, praying for peace. At the
   head of the embassy was the venerable bishop of Rome, Leo
   I.—the first of the great Popes. To his influence the pacific
   disposition into which Attila was persuaded has been commonly
   ascribed. At all events, the king of the Huns consented to
   peace with the Romans, and withdrew beyond the Danube in
   fulfilment of the treaty, leaving Italy a desert to the
   Appennines, but not beyond.

      T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 2, chapter 4 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 35.

      See, also,
      VENICE: A. D. 452.

HUNS: A. D. 453.
   Death of Attila and fall of his empire.

   Attila died suddenly and mysteriously in his sleep, after a
   drunken debauch, some time in the early months of the year
   453, and his death was the end of the "reign of terror" under
   which he had reduced half the world. "Immediately after his
   death, the Germans refused to submit to the divided rule of
   his sons. The army of Attila split up into two great camps; on
   the one side were the Gepidæ and Ostrogoths, with the majority
   of the Teutonic nations; on the other the Huns, the Alans, the
   Sarmatians or Slavonians, and the few Germans who still owned
   allegiance to the memory of Attila. A vast plain between the
   Drave and the Danube was selected to decide this vital
   struggle, known as the battle of Netad, which, though less
   famous in history, may perhaps claim equal importance with
   that of Chalons, as an arbiter of the destinies of
   civilization. … Fortune at first seemed to favour the Huns;
   but German steadfastness prevailed; Goths and Gepidæ scattered
   the less-disciplined bands of Asia; and Ardaric, the king of
   the latter tribe for the time, established himself in the
   royal residence of Attila, and assumed the leading position in
   the barbarian world."

      J. G. Sheppard,
      Fall of Rome,
      lecture 4.

   "Thirty thousand of the Huns and their confederates lay dead
   upon the field, among them Ellak, Attila's first-born. … The
   rest of his nation fled away across the Dacian plains, and
   over the Carpathian mountains to those wide steppes of
   Southern Russia in which at the commencement of our history we
   saw the three Gothic nations taking up their abode. Ernak,
   Attila's darling, ruled tranquilly under Roman protection in
   the district between the lower Danube and the Black Sea, which
   we now call the Dobrudscha, and which was then 'the lesser
   Others of his family maintained a precarious footing higher up
   the stream. … There is nothing in the after-history of these
   fragments of the nation with which anyone need concern
   himself. … Dacia, that part of Hungary which lies east and
   north of the Danube, and which had been the heart of Attila's
   domains, fell to the lot of the Gepidae, under the wise and
   victorious Ardaric. Pannonia, that is the western portion of
   Hungary, with Sclavonia, and parts of Croatia, Styria and
   Lower Austria, was ruled over by the three Amal-descended
   kings of the Ostrogoths."

      T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).

   Attila in Teutonic legend.

   "Short as was the sway of Attila (from 434 to 453), the terror
   it had inspired and the great commotion it had brought over
   the whole Teuton and Roman world, were, not … soon
   forgotten. … The memory of the great chieftain hovered for a
   long time, like a bloody phantom, in the Roman annals and in
   the German sagas. … When we compare the historical Attila,
   before whose piercing glance Rome and Constantinople trembled,
   with Etzel of the Nibelungen Lied, we find that the latter
   bears but a slight resemblance to the former. It is true that
   Attila's powerful sway is still reflected in the Nibelungen
   Lied, as Kriemhild at her arrival in the land of the Huns is
   surprised at seeing so many nations submitted to his sceptre.
   Yet upon the whole Etzel plays in the German epic the part of
   a weak and sometimes even contemptible king, while glimpses of
   his real might can be detected only at rare intervals,
   fluttering as it were in the far-distant background of a
   by-gone time. … The Eddas and the Volsunga Saga bear the
   impress of the early Teutonic era, when the king was little
   more than the chosen leader in war; and the Northern people
   for a long time had in their political institutions nothing by
   which the conception of a great monarchy, or still less of a
   far-stretching realm like that of Attila, could be expressed."

      G. T. Dippold,
      Great Epics of Mediæval Germany,
      chapter 4.

   ----------HUNS: End--------

HUNS, The White.

   "It was during the reign of this prince [Varahran V., king of
   Persia, A. D. 420-440] that those terrible struggles commenced
   between the Persians and their neighbours upon the north-east
   which continued, from the early part of the fifth till the
   middle of the sixth century, to endanger the very existence of
   the empire. Various names are given to the people with whom
   Persia waged her wars during this period. They are called
   Turks, Huns, sometimes even Chinese; but these terms seem to
   be used in a vague way, as 'Scythian' was by the ancients; and
   the special ethnic designation of the people appears to be
   quite a different name from any of them. It is a name the
   Persian form of which is 'Haïthal,' or 'Haïtheleh,' the
   Armenian 'Hephthagh,' and the Greek 'Ephthalites,' or
   sometimes 'Nephthalites.' … All that we know of the
   Ephthalites is, that they were established in force, during
   the fifth and sixth centuries of our era, in the regions east
   of the Caspian, especially in those beyond the Oxus river, and
   that they were generally regarded as belonging to the Scythic
   or Finno-Turkic population, which, at any rate from B. C. 200,
   had become powerful in that region. They were called 'White
   Huns' by some of the Greeks; but it is admitted that they were
   quite distinct from the Huns who invaded Europe under Attila.
   … They were a light-complexioned race, whereas the Huns were
   decidedly swart; they were not ill-looking, whereas the Huns
   were hideous; they were an agricultural people, while the Huns
   were nomads; they had good laws, and were tolerably well
   civilised, but the Huns were savages. It is probable that they
   belonged to the Thibetic or Turkish stock."

      G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 14.

   "We are able to distinguish the two great divisions of these
   formidable exiles [the Huns], which directed their march
   towards the Oxus and towards the Volga. The first of these
   colonies established their dominion in the fruitful and
   extensive plains of Sogdiana, on the eastern side of the
   Caspian, where they preserved the name of Huns, with the
   epithet of Euthalites [Ephthalites], or Nephthalites. Their
   manners were softened, and even their features were insensibly
   improved, by the mildness of the climate and their long
   residence in a flourishing province; which might still retain
   a faint impression of the arts of Greece. The White Huns, a
   name which they derived from the change of their complexion,
   soon abandoned the pastoral life of Scythia. Gorgo, which,
   under the appellation of Carizine, has since enjoyed a
   temporary splendour, was the residence of the king, who
   exercised a legal authority over an obedient people. Their
   luxury was maintained by the labour of the Sogdians."

      E. Gibbon.
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 26.

   The White Huns were subjugated by the Turks.


HUNTER, General David.
   Command in Kansas.


   Emancipation Order.


   Command in the Shenandoah.

      A. D.1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

HUNTSVILLE, Capture of.

      A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: ALABAMA).



   ----------HURON, Lake: Start--------

HURON, Lake:

      See CANADA: A. D. 1611-1616; and 1634-1673.

HURON, Lake: A. D. 1679.
   Navigated by La Salle.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

   ----------HURON, Lake: End--------



HURST CASTLE, King Charles at.



      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415.




   Matthias, son of John Hunyadi, was elected king of Hungary in
   1458. "The defence of the country chiefly engaged the
   attention of Matthias at the commencement of his reign.
   Measures of defence were accordingly carried on with the
   utmost speed, the most important of which was the
   establishment of regular cavalry; to levy which one man was
   enrolled out of every 20 families. This was the origin of the
   'Hussar,' meaning in Hungarian the price or due of twenty."

      E. Szabad,
      Hungary, Past and Present,
      page 50.

HUSSEIN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1694-1722.



   "The 'hygh and auncyent' Court of Husting of the City of
   London is of Anglo-Saxon, or, to speak more accurately, of
   Scandinavian origin, being a remarkable memorial of the sway
   once exercised over England by the Danes and other Northmen.
   The name of the Court is derived from [hus], 'a house,' and
   [dhing], a thing, 'cause,' or 'council,' and signifies,
   according to general acceptation, 'a court held in a house,'
   in contradistinction to other 'things,' or courts, which in
   Saxon times were usually held in the open air. … The term
   'Husting' or, less correctly, 'Hustings' is commonly applied
   at the present day to open-air assemblies or temporary courts,
   usually held in some elevated position, for the purpose of
   electing members of Parliament in counties and boroughs, its
   strict etymological meaning, being lost sight of. … [The
   Court of Husting] is the oldest court of record within the
   City, and at one time constituted the sole court for settling
   disputes between citizen and citizen."

      R. R. Sharpe,
      Introduction to Calendar of Wills,
      Court of Husting, London.

HUTCHINSON, Mrs. Anne, and the Antinomian troubles.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638;
      and RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

HUTCHINSON, Governor Thomas,
   and the outbreak of Revolution in Massachusetts.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761;
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765,
      NEWS OF THE STAMP ACT; 1772-1773; 1774 (MAY-JUNE).


   A name borne by the West Saxons who first settled in
   Gloucestershire and Worcestershire when that region was
   conquered. They led a revolt against the West Saxon king
   Ceawlin, in which they were joined by the Britons, or Welsh.
   The battle of Wanborough, fought A. D. 591, drove Ceawlin from
   the throne.

      J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      pages 129-208.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

HYACINTHIA, Feast of the.

   "The feast of the Hyacinthia was held annually at Amyclæ
   [Lacedæmonia], on the longest day of the Spartan month
   Hecatombeus, corresponding to our June and July. …
   Hyacinthus, the beautiful youth slain accidentally by Apollo,
   was the chief object of the worship. He took his name from the
   flower, which was an emblem of death; and the original feast
   seems to have been altogether a mournful ceremony,—a
   lamentation over the destruction of the flowers of spring by
   the summer heat, passing on to a more general lament over
   death itself.'

      G. Rawlinson,
      History of Herodotus,
      Note, book 9, section 7.

      ALSO IN:
      E. Abbott,
      History of Greece,
      volume 1, page 222.


   "There was a Sikel goddess Hybla, whom the Greeks looked on as
   the same with several goddesses of their own mythology, here
   with one, there with another. Three towns in Sicily were
   called after her, one in the southeastern part of the island,
   now Ragusa, another on the coast north of Syracuse, near the
   place where the Greek colony of Megara was afterwards planted.
   This gave Its name to the Hyblaian hills not far off, famous
   for their honey; but there is no hill strictly called Mount
   Hybla. The third Hybla is inland, not far from Catania, and is
   now called Paterno."

      E. A. Freeman,
      Story of Sicily,
      page 33.


   The ancient name of the river Jelum, or Jhelum, in the Punjab,
   on the banks of which the Indian king Porus made a vain
   attempt to oppose the invasion of Alexander.

      C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 53.

   English Wars with.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769; 1780-1783;
      and 1785-1793.

   The Nizam of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748; and 1877.


      See NORMANS.




   "The Hylleans are never mentioned in any historical narrative,
   but always in mythical [Greek] legends; and they appear to
   have been known to the geographers only from mythological
   writers. Yet they are generally placed in the islands of
   Melita and Black-Corcyra, to the south of Liburnia."

      C. O. Müller,
      History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
      volume 1, introduction.


   One of the noted mountains of Attica, "celebrated for its
   excellent honey, and the broad belt of flowers at its base,
   which scented the air with their delicious perfume."

      M. and R. P. Willson,
      Mosaics of Grecian History,
      page 9.


   "As surnames were not generally used, either in Ireland or
   anywhere else, till after the 10th century, the great families
   are distinguishable at first only by their tribe or clan
   names. Thus, at the north we have the Hy-Nial race; in the
   south the Eugenian race, so called, from Nial and Eoghan,
   their mutual ancestors."

      T. D. McGee,
      Popular History of Ireland,
      book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).


      See ALEXANDRIA: A.D. 413-415.


   A mythical people, supposed by the ancients to dwell beyond
   the north wind, and therefore to enjoy a perfect climate in
   the extreme north.

   The ancient name of the river Sutlej, in the Punjab.


   "The mountain-chain which skirts the Great Plateau [of Iran]
   on the north, distinguished in these pages by the name of
   Elburz, broadens out after it passes the south-eastern corner
   of the Caspian Sea till it covers a space of nearly three
   degrees (more than 200 miles). Instead of the single lofty
   ridge which separates the Salt Desert from the low Caspian
   region, we find between the 54th and 59th degrees of east
   longitude three or four distinct ranges, all nearly parallel
   to one another, having a general direction of east and west.
   … Here in Persian times was settled a people called Hyrcani;
   and from them the tract derived the name of Hyrcania
   (Vehrkana), while the lake [Caspian Sea] on which it adjoined
   came to be known as 'the Hyrcanian Sea.' The fertility of the
   region, its broad plains, shady woods, and lofty mountains
   were celebrated by the ancient writers."

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

   "In the inscriptions of the Achæmenids their land [Hyrcania]
   is known as Valkana; the modern name is Jorjan. Here,
   according to the Greeks, the mountains were covered with
   forests of oaks, where swarms of wild bees had their hives; in
   the valleys vines and fig-trees flourished, and the soil down
   to the sea was so luxuriant that corn grew from the fallen
   grains without any special sowing."

      M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 7, chapter 1.

      See, also, PARTHIA.




      also, ŒNOTRIANS.



IBERA, Battle at.


IBERIANS, The eastern.

   "The Sapeires [of Herodotus] appear to be the Iberians of
   later writers. The name is found under the various forms of
   Saspeires, Sapeires, Sabeires, or Sabeiri, and Abeires, whence
   the transition to Iberes is easy. They are always represented
   as adjoining on the Colchians to the east and southeast, so
   that they must evidently have inhabited the greater part of
   the modern province of Georgia. … There is reason to believe
   that the modern Georgians—still called 'Virk' by their
   neighbours—are their descendants, and preserve, in the
   original seat of the nation, a name and a nationality which
   have defied the destroying touch of time for more than
   twenty-four centuries."

      G. Rawlinson,
      History of Herodotus,
      book 7, appendix 1.

      See, also, ALARODIANS.

   If these Iberians of the east were connected in race or origin
   of name with the Iberians of western Europe, the connection
   does not seem to have been traced. Iberia was devastated and
   subjugated by the Seljuk Turks in the 11th century.

      See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1063-1073.

IBERIANS, The western.

   "The numerous skulls obtained from Basque cemeteries possess
   exactly those characters which have been remarked … in the
   Neolithic tombs and caves in Britain and on the Continent, and
   may therefore be taken to imply that the Basque-speaking
   peoples are to be looked upon as a fragment of the race which
   occupied the British isles, and the area west of the Rhine and
   north of the Alps, in the Neolithic age. … Nor can there be
   any reasonable doubt as to this small, dark-haired people
   being identical with the ancient Iberians of history, who have
   left their name in the Iberian peninsula [Spain] as a mark of
   their former dominion in the west. … In ancient times they
   were spread through Spain as far to the south as the Pillars
   of Hercules, and as far to the north-east as Germany and
   Denmark. The Iberic population of the British Isles was
   apparently preserved from contact with other races throughout
   the whole of the Neolithic age. On the Continent, however, it
   is not so; a new set of men, differing in physical
   characteristics from them, make their appearance. … The new
   invader is identified by Thurnam and Huxley with the Celtæ of
   history. … These two races were in possession of Spain
   during the very earliest times recorded in history, the
   Iberians occupying the north-western region, and the Celts, or
   Gauls, extending in a broad band south of the Pyrenees along
   the Mediterranean shore. … In the north the Vascones then,
   as now, held the Basque provinces of Spain. The distribution
   of these two races in Gaul is similar to that which we have
   noted in Spain. … When Cæsar conquered Gaul, the Iberian
   Aquitani possessed the region bounded by the river Garonne,
   the Cevennes, and the Pyrenees. … An ethnological connection
   also between Aquitaine and Brittany (Armorica) may be inferred
   from the remark of Pliny, 'Aquitania Armorica ante dicta.' …
   Just as the Celts pushed back the Iberian population of Gaul
   as far south as Aquitania, and swept round it into Spain, so
   they crossed the channel and overran the greater portion of
   Britain, until the Silures, identified by Tacitus with the
   Iberians, were left only in those fastnesses which were
   subsequently a refuge for the Welsh against the English

      W. B. Dawkins,
      Early Man in Britain,
      chapter 9.

      ALSO IN:
      I. Taylor,
      Origin of the Aryans,
      chapter 2, section 5.

      and, also, volume 1, APPENDIX A.


      See ALBION.

   Caliph, A. D. 744.

   Ibrahim, Turkish Sultan, 1640-1649.

ICARIA, Attica.

   One of the demes or ancient townships of Attica, where
   Icarius, in a Greek legend, was taught the art of wine-making
   by Dionysus.

ICARIA, in the Ægean.

   An island near Samos and anciently belonging to the Samians,
   who used it chiefly for their pasture land.

   ----------ICELAND: Start--------

   Supposed identity with the Ultima Thule of the ancients.

      See THULE.

ICELAND: A. D. 860-1100.
   Discovery and Settlement by the Northmen.
   A Norse Commonwealth.
   Development of the Saga Literature.

      See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100.

ICELAND: A. D. 1800-1874.
   Political relations with Denmark.


   ----------ICELAND: End--------


      See THING.


      See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES; and A. D. 61.

ICONIUM, Sultans of.

      See TURKS (THE SELJUKS): A. D. 1073-1092.


   "Of the controversies that disquieted this age [the eighth
   century], the greatest and the most pernicious related to the
   worship of sacred images. Originating in Greece, it thence
   spread over the East, and the West, producing great harm both
   to the state and to the church. The first sparks of it
   appeared under Phillippicus Bardanes, who was emperor of the
   Greeks near the beginning of this century. With the consent of
   the patriarch John, in the year 712, he removed from the
   portico of the church of St. Sophia a picture representing the
   sixth general council, which condemned the Monothelites, whom
   the emperor was disposed to favour; and he sent his mandate to
   Rome, requiring all such pictures to be removed out of the
   churches. But Constantine, the Roman pontiff, not only
   protested against the emperor's edict, but … , having
   assembled a council at Rome, he caused the emperor himself to
   be condemned as an apostate from the true religion. These
   first commotions, however, terminated the next year, when the
   emperor was hurled from the throne. Under Leo the Isaurian, a
   very heroic emperor, another conflict ensued; which was far
   more terrific, severe, and lasting. Leo, unable to bear with
   the extravagant superstition of the Greeks in worshipping
   religious images, which rendered them a reproach both to the
   Jews and the Saracens; in order to extirpate the evil
   entirely, issued an edict in the year 726, commanding all
   images of saints, with the exception of that of Christ on the
   cross, to be removed out of the churches, and the worship of
   them to be wholly discontinued and abrogated.
   … A civil war broke out; first in the islands of the
   Archipelago and a part of Asia, and afterwards in Italy. For
   the people, either spontaneously, or being so instructed by
   the priests and monks, to whom the images were productive of
   gain, considered the emperor as an apostate from true
   religion. … In Italy, the Roman pontiffs, Gregory II. and
   Gregory III., were the principal authors of the revolt. …
   The Romans and the other people of Italy who were subjects of
   the Greek empire, violated their allegiance, and either
   massacred or expelled the viceroys of Leo. Exasperated by
   these causes, the emperor contemplated making war upon Italy,
   and especially upon the pontiff: but circumstances prevented
   him. Hence in the year 730, fired with resentment and
   indignation, he vented his fury against images and their
   worshippers, much more violently than before. For having
   assembled a council of bishops, he deposed Germanus, bishop of
   Constantinople, who favoured images, and substituted
   Anastasius in his place; commanded that images should be
   committed to the flames, and inflicted various punishments
   upon the advocates of them. The consequence of this severity
   was, that the Christian church was unhappily rent into two
   parties; that of the Iconoduli or Iconolatrae, who adored and
   worshipped images, and that of the Iconomachi or Iconoclastae,
   who would not preserve but destroyed them; and these parties
   furiously contended with mutual invectives, abuses, and
   assassinations. The course commenced by Gregory II. was warmly
   prosecuted by Gregory III., and although we cannot determine
   at this distance of time the precise degree of fault in either
   of these prelates, thus much is unquestionable, that the loss
   of their Italian possessions in this contest by the Greeks, is
   to be ascribed especially to the zeal of these two pontiffs in
   behalf of images. Leo's son Constantine, surnamed Copronymus
   by the furious tribe of Image-worshippers, after he came to
   the throne, A. D. 741, trod in his father's steps; for he
   laboured with equal vigour to extirpate the worship of images,
   in opposition to the machinations of the Roman pontiff and the
   monks. Yet he pursued the business with more moderation than
   his father had done: and being, aware that the Greeks were
   governed entirely by the authority of councils in religious
   matters, he collected a council of eastern bishops at
   Constantinople in the year 754, to examine and decide this
   controversy. By the Greeks this is called the seventh general
   council. The bishops pronounced sentence, as was customary,
   according to the views of the emperor; and therefore condemned
   images. … Leo IV., who succeeded to the throne on the death
   of Constantine, A. D. 775, entertained the same views as his
   father and grandfather. For when he saw, that the abettors of
   images were not to be moved at all by mild and gentle
   measures, he coerced them with penal statutes. But Leo IV.
   being removed by poison, through the wickedness of his
   perfidious wife Irene, in the year 780, images became
   triumphant. For that guilty woman, who governed the empire
   during the minority of her son Constantine, with a view to
   establish her authority, after entering into a league with
   Hadrian the Roman pontiff, assembled a council at Nice in
   Bithynia in the year 786, which is known by the title of the
   second. Nicene council. Here the laws of the emperors,
   together with the decrees of the council of Constantinople,
   were abrogated; the worship of images and of the cross was
   established. … In these contests most of the Latins,—as the
   Britons, the Germans, and the French, took middle ground
   between the contending parties; for they decided, that images
   were to be retained indeed, and to be placed in the churches,
   but that no religious worship could be offered to them without
   dishonouring the Supreme Being. In particular Charlemagne, at
   the suggestion of the French bishops who were displeased with
   the Nicene decrees, caused four Books concerning images to be
   drawn up by some learned man, and sent them in the year 790 to
   the Roman pontiff Hadrian, with a view to prevent his
   approving the decrees of Nice. In this work, the arguments of
   the Nicene bishops in defence of image-worship, are acutely
   and vigorously combated. But Hadrian was not to be taught by
   such a master, however illustrious, and therefore issued his
   formal confutation of the book. Charlemagne next assembled, in
   the year 794, a council of 300 bishops, at Frankfort on the
   Maine, in order to re-examine this controversy. This council
   approved the sentiments contained in the Books of Charlemagne,
   and forbid the worship of images."

      J. L. von Mosheim,
      Institutes of Ecclesiastical History,
      book 3, century 8, part 2, chapter 3 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 4, chapter 10, section 101.

      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 49.

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire,
      book 1.

      H. F. Tozer,
      The Church and the Eastern Empire,
      chapter 6.

      See, also,
      PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.


      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.


   An island off the coast of Britain, to which tin is said to
   have been brought from the main shore by natives to be sold to
   Greek merchants. Whether it was the Isle of Thanet, at the
   mouth of the Thames, or the Isle of Wight, or St. Michael's
   Mount, is a disputed question.

IDA, Mount.

      See TROJA.

   ----------IDAHO: Start--------

   The Aboriginal inhabitants.


IDAHO: A. D. 1803.
   Was it embraced in the Louisiana Purchase?
   Grounds of American possession.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

IDAHO: A. D. 1863.
   Organized as a Territory.

   The Territory of Idaho was created by an act of
Congress passed March 3, 1863.

IDAHO: A. D. 1890.
   Admission to the Union as a State.

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

   ----------IDAHO: End--------



IDLE, Battle of the.

   Fought A. D. 617, between the East English, or East Angles,
   and the Northumbrians; the former victorious.

IDOMENE, Battle of.

   One of the battles of the Peloponnesian War, in which the
   Ambrakiots were surprised and almost totally destroyed by
   Messenians and Akarnanians, under the Athenian general
   Demosthenes, B. C. 426.

      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 51 (volume 6).

IDSTEDT, Battle of (1850).

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


      See EDOMITES.




IGANIE, Battle of (1831).

      See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

IGUALA, The Plan of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.

IGUALADA, Battle of (1809).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).




   The Spartan boys were divided into companies, according to
   their several ages; each company was called an Ila, and was
   commanded by a young officer called an Ilarch.

      G. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 1.


   Modern Lerida, in Spain, the scene of Cæsar's famous campaign
   against Afranius and Petreius, in the civil war.

      See ROME: B. C. 49.


      See HOMER.


      See TROJA.


      See PERSIA: A. D. 1258-1393.

   The proposed State of.


   ----------ILLINOIS: Start--------

   The aboriginal inhabitants.


ILLINOIS: A. D. 1673.
   Traversed by Marquette and Joliet.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1679-1682.
   LaSalle's fort and colony.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1679-1735.
   The French occupation.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1700-1750.
   The "Illinois country" under the French.

   "For many years the term 'Illinois country' embraced all the
   region east of the Upper Mississippi as far as Lake Michigan,
   and from the Wisconsin on the north to the Ohio on the south.
   The extent of the Illinois country under the French varied but
   little from the extent of the present State of Illinois. At a
   later date, its limits on the east were restricted by the
   'Wabash country,' which was erected into a separate
   government, under the commandant of 'Post St. Vincent,'on the
   Wabash River. … The early French on the Illinois were
   remarkable for their talent of ingratiating themselves with
   the warlike tribes around them, and for their easy
   amalgamation in manners and customs, and blood. … Their
   settlements were usually in the form of small, compact,
   patriarchal villages, like one great family assembled around
   their old men and patriarchs."

      J. W. Monette,
      History of the Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of
      the Mississippi,
      volume 1, pages 181-183.

      See, also, LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1751.
   Settlements and population.

   "Up to this time, the 'Illinois country,' east of the Upper
   Mississippi, contained six distinct settlements, with their
   respective villages. These were:

   1. Cahokia, near the mouth of Cahokia Creek, and nearly five
   miles below the present site of St. Louis;

   2. St. Philip, forty-five miles below the last, and four miles
   above Fort Chartres, on the cast side of the Mississippi;

   3. Fort Chartres, on the east bank of the Mississippi, twelve
   miles above Kaskaskia;

   4. Kaskaskia, situated upon the Kaskaskia River, five miles
   above its mouth, upon a peninsula, and within two miles of the
   Mississippi River;

   5. Prairie du Rocher, near Fort Chartres;

   6. St. Geneviève, on the west side of the Mississippi, and
   about one mile from its bank, upon Gabarre Creek.

   These are among the oldest towns in what was long known as the
   Illinois country. Kaskaskia, in its best days, under the
   French regime, was quite a large town, containing 2,000 or
   3,000 inhabitants. But after it passed from the crown of
   France, its population for many years did not exceed 1,500
   souls. Under the British dominion the population decreased to
   460 souls, in 1773."

      J. W. Monette,
      History of the Discovery and Settlement
      of the Mississippi Valley,
      volume 1, pages 167-168.

   "The population of the French and Indian villages in the
   district of the Illinois, at the period of which we write, is
   largely a matter of conjecture and computation. Father Louis
   Vivier, a Jesuit missionary, in a letter dated June 8, 1750,
   and written from the vicinity of Fort Chartres, says: 'We have
   here whites, negroes, and Indians, to say nothing of the
   cross-breeds. There are five French villages, and three
   villages of the natives within a space of twenty-five
   leagues, situate between the Mississippi and another river
   called (Kaskaskia). In the French villages are, perhaps,
   eleven hundred whites, three hundred blacks, and sixty red
   slaves or savages. The three Illinois towns do not contain
   more than eight hundred souls, all told.' This estimate does
   not include the scattered French settlers or traders north of
   Peoria, nor on the Wabash. It is stated that the Illinois
   nation, then dwelling for the most part along the river of
   that name, occupied eleven different villages, with four or
   five fires at each village, and each fire warming a dozen
   families, except at the principal village, where there were
   three hundred lodges. These data would give us something near
   eight thousand as the total number of the Illinois of all

      J. Wallace,
      History of Illinois and Louisiana under the French Rule,
      chapter 16.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1763.
   Cession to Great Britain.


ILLINOIS: A. D. 1763.
   The king's proclamation excluding settlers.


ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.
   Possession taken by the English.

   "The French officers had, since the peace, been ready loyally
   to surrender the country to the English. But the Illinois, the
   Missouri, and the Osage tribes would not consent. At a council
   held in the spring of 1765, at Fort Chartres, the chief of the
   Kaskaskias, turning to the English officer, said: 'Go hence,
   and tell your chief that the Illinois and all our brethren
   will make war on you if you come upon our lands.' … But when
   Fraser, who arrived from Pittsburg, brought proofs that their
   elder brothers, the Senecas, the Delawares and the Shawnees,
   had made peace with the English, the Kaskaskias said: 'We
   follow as they shall lead.' 'I waged this war,' said Pontiac,
   'because, for two years together, the Delawares and Shawnees
   begged me to take up arms against the English. So I became
   their ally, and was of their mind;' and, plighting his word
   for peace, he kept it with integrity. A just curiosity may ask
   how many persons of foreign lineage had gathered in the valley
   of the Illinois since its discovery by the missionaries.
   Fraser was told that there were of white men, able to bear
   arms, 700; of white women, 500; of their children, 850; of
   negroes of both sexes, 900. The banks of the Wabash, we learn
   from another source, were occupied by about 110 French
   families, most of which were at Vincennes.
   Fraser sought to overawe the French traders with the menace of
   an English army that was to come among them; but they pointed
   to the Mississippi, beyond which they would be safe from
   English jurisdiction [France having ceded to Spain her
   territory on the western side of the river]. … With Croghan,
   an Indian agent, who followed from Fort Pitt, the Illinois
   nations agreed that the English should take possession of all
   the posts which the French formerly held; and Captain
   Stirling, with 100 men of the 42d regiment, was detached down
   the Ohio, to relieve the French garrison. At Fort Chartres,
   St. Ange, who had served for fifty years in the wilderness,
   gave them a friendly reception; and on the morning of the 10th
   of October he surrendered to them the left bank of the
   Mississippi. Some of the French crossed the river, so that at
   St. Genevieve there were at least five-and-twenty families,
   while St. Louis, whose origin dates from the 15th of February
   1764, and whose skilfully chosen site attracted the admiration
   of the British commander, already counted about twice that
   number, and ranked as the leading settlement on the western
   side of the Mississippi. In the English portion of the distant
   territory, the government then instituted was the absolute
   rule of the British army, with a local judge to decide all
   disputes among the inhabitants according to the customs of the
   country, yet subject to an appeal to the military chief."

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 3, pages 151-152.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765-1774.
   Early years of English rule.

   "Just before and during the first years of the English
   domination, there was a large exodus of the French inhabitants
   from Illinois. Such, in fact, was their dislike of British
   rule that fully one-third of the population, embracing the
   wealthier and more influential families, removed with their
   slaves and other personal effects, beyond the Mississippi, or
   down that river to Natchez and New Orleans. Some of them
   settled at Ste. Genevieve, while others, after the example set
   by St. Ange, took up their abode in the village of St. Louis,
   which had now become a depot for the fur company of Louisiana.
   … At the close of the year 1765, the whole number of
   inhabitants of foreign birth or lineage, in Illinois,
   excluding the negro slaves, and including those living at Post
   Vincent on the Wabash, did not much exceed two thousand
   persons; and, during the entire period of British possession,
   the influx of alien population hardly more than kept pace with
   the outflow. Scarcely any Englishmen, other than the officers
   and troops composing the small garrisons, a few enterprising
   traders and some favored land speculators, were then to be
   seen in the Illinois, and no Americans came hither, for the
   purpose of settlement, until after the conquest of the country
   by Colonel Clark. All the settlements still remained
   essentially French, with whom there was no taste for
   innovation or change. But the blunt and sturdy Anglo-American
   had at last gained a firm foot-hold on the banks of the great
   Father of Rivers, and a new type of civilization, instinct
   with energy, enterprise and progress, was about to be
   introduced into the broad and fertile Valley of the
   Mississippi. … Captain Thomas Stirling began the military
   government of the country on October 10, 1765, with fair and
   liberal concessions, calculated to secure the good-will and
   loyalty of the French-Canadians, and to stay their further
   exodus; but his administration was not of long duration. On
   the 4th of the ensuing December, he was succeeded by Major
   Robert Farmer, who had arrived from Mobile with a detachment
   of the 34th British infantry. In the following year, after
   exercising an arbitrary authority over these isolated and
   feeble settlements, Major Farmer was displaced by Colonel
   Edward Cole, who had commanded a regiment under Wolfe, at
   Quebec. Colonel Cole remained in command at Fort Chartres
   about eighteen months; but the position was not congenial to
   him. … He was accordingly relieved at his own request, early
   in the year 1768. His successor was Colonel John Reed, who
   proved a bad exchange for the poor colonists. He soon became
   so notorious for his military oppressions of the people that
   he was removed, and gave place to Lieutenant-Colonel John
   Wilkins, of the 18th, or royal regiment of Ireland, who had
   formerly commanded at Fort Niagara. Colonel Wilkins arrived
   from Philadelphia and assumed the command September 5, 1768.
   He brought out with him seven companies of his regiment for
   garrison duty. … One of the most noticeable features of
   Colonel Wilkins' administration was the liberality with which
   he parceled out large tracts of the domain over which he ruled
   to his favorites in Illinois, Philadelphia, and elsewhere,
   without other consideration than requiring them to re-convey
   to him a certain interest in the same. Lieutenant Colonel
   Wilkins' government of the Illinois country eventually became
   unpopular, and specific charges were preferred against him,
   including a misappropriation of the public funds. He asked for
   an official investigation, claiming that he was able to
   justify his public conduct. But he was deposed from office in
   September, 1771, and sailed for Europe in July of the
   following year. Captain Hugh Lord, of the 18th regiment,
   became Wilkins' successor at Fort Chartres, and continued in
   command until the year 1775. … On the 2d of June, 1774,
   Parliament passed an act enlarging and extending the province
   of Quebec to the Mississippi River so as to include the
   territory of the Northwest. … Who was the immediate
   successor of Captain Lord in command of the Illinois is not
   positively determined."

      J. Wallace,
      History of Illinois and Louisiana Under the French Rule,
      chapter 20.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1774.
   Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1778-1779.
   Conquest from the British by the Virginian General Clark and
   annexation to the Kentucky District of Virginia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779,

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1784.
   Included in the proposed states of Assenisipia, Illinoia, and


ILLINOIS: A. D. 1785-1786.
   Partially covered by the western land claims of Massachusetts
   and Connecticut, ceded to the United States.

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

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1787.
   The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.
   Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.


ILLINOIS: A. D. 1809.
   Detached from Indiana and organized as a distinct Territory.

      See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.


ILLINOIS: A. D. 1818.
   Admission into the Union as a State.

      See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818;
      and WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1832.
   The Black Hawk War.

   "In 1830 a treaty was made with the tribes of Sacs and Foxes,
   by which their lands in Illinois were ceded to the United
   States. They were nevertheless unwilling to leave their
   country. … Black Hawk, a chief of the Sacs, then about 60
   years of age, refused submission, and the next year returned
   with a small force. He was driven back by the troops at Rock
   Island, but in March, 1832, he reappeared, at the head of
   about 1,000 warriors,—Sacs, Foxes, and Winnebagos,—and
   penetrated into the Rock river valley, declaring that he came
   only to plant corn. But either he would not or could not
   restrain his followers, and the devastation of Indian warfare
   soon spread among the frontier settlements. … The force at
   Rock Island was sent out to stay these ravages, and Generals
   Scott and Atkinson ordered from Buffalo with a reënforcement,
   which on the way was greatly diminished by cholera and
   desertions. The Governor of Illinois called for volunteers,
   and an effective force of about 2,400 men was soon marched
   against the enemy. Black Hawk's band fled before it. General
   Whiteside, who was in command, burned the Prophet's Town, on
   Rock River, and pursued the Indians up that stream. … The
   Indians were overtaken and badly defeated on Wisconsin River;
   and the survivors, still retreating northward, were again
   overtaken near Bad Axe River, on the left bank of the
   Mississippi. … Many of the Indians were shot in the water
   while trying to swim the stream; others were killed on a
   little island where they sought refuge. Only about 50
   prisoners were taken, and most of these were squaws and
   children. The dispersion was complete, and the war was soon
   closed by the surrender or capture of Black Hawk, Keokuk, and
   other chiefs."

      W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapter 12.

      ALSO IN:
      T. Ford,
      History of Illinois,
      chapters 4-5.

      J. B. Patterson, editor,
      History of Black Hawk, dictated by himself.
      Wisconsin Historical Society Collections,
      volume 10.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1840-1846.
   The settlement and the expulsion of the Mormons.

      See MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846; and 1846-1848.

   ----------ILLINOIS: End--------



ILLYRIA, Slavonic settlement of.



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


   "Northward of the tribes called Epirotic lay those more
   numerous and widely extended tribes who bore the general name
   of Illyrians, bounded on the west by the Adriatic, on the east
   by the mountain-range of Skardus, the northern continuation of
   Pindus, and thus covering what is now called Middle and Upper
   Albania, together with the more northerly mountains of
   Montenegro, Herzegovina, and Bosnia. Their limits to the north
   and north-east cannot be assigned. … Appian and others
   consider the Liburnians and Istrians as Illyrian, and
   Herodotus even includes under that name the Eneti or Veneti at
   the extremity of the Adriatic Gulf. … The Illyrians
   generally were poor, rapacious, fierce and formidable in
   battle. They shared with the remote Thracian tribes the custom
   of tattooing their bodies and of offering human sacrifices:
   moreover, they were always ready to sell their military
   service for hire, like the modern Albanian Schkipetars, in
   whom probably their blood yet flows, though with considerable
   admixture from subsequent immigrations. Of the Illyrian
   kingdom on the Adriatic coast, with Skodra (Scutari) for its
   capital city, which became formidable by its reckless piracies
   in the third century B. C., we hear nothing in the flourishing
   period of Grecian history."

      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 25 (volume 3).

      ALSO IN:
      T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 6.


   "The provinces of the Danube soon acquired the general
   appellation of Illyricum, or the Illyrian frontier, and were
   esteemed the most warlike of the empire; but they deserve to
   be more particularly considered under the names of Rhætia,
   Noricum, Pannonia, Dalmatia, Dacia, Mœsia, Thrace, Macedonia,
   and Greece. … Dalmatia, to which the name of Illyricum more
   properly belonged, was a long but narrow tract, between the
   Save and the Adriatic. … The inland parts have assumed the
   Sclavonian names of Croatia and Bosnia."

      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 1.

      See, also, ROME: A. D. 394-305.


      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.


   "When an assembly of Moslems meet together for prayer, an Imam
   is chosen, who leads the prayer, and the congregation regulate
   their motions by his, prostrating themselves when he does so,
   and rising when he rises. In like manner, the khalif is set up
   on high as the Imam, or leader of the Faithful, in all the
   business of life. He must be a scrupulous observer of the law
   himself, and diligent in enforcing it upon others. The
   election of an Imam is imperative. … The qualities requisite
   in an Imam are four: knowledge, integrity, mental and physical
   soundness. … Among strict Moslems, it is a doctrine that
   Islam has been administered by only four veritable Imams—the
   'rightly-guided khalifs': Abou Bekr, Omar, Othman, and Ali.
   But the Muhammadan world, in general, was not so exacting.
   They recognized the Commander of the Faithful in the prince
   who ruled with the title of khalif in Damascus or Baghdad, in
   Cordova or Kairo. The one condition absolutely essential was
   that the sovereign thus reigning should be a
   member of the tribe of Kuraish [or Koreish]."

      R. D. Osborn,
      Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad,
      part 3, chapter 1.

      See, also, ISLAM.

   Promulgation of the Dogma of the.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1854.

IMMÆ, Battle of (A. D. 217).

      See ROME: A. D. 192-284.


   A select corps of cavalry in the army of the Persians, under
   the Sassanian kings, bore this name. It numbered 10,000.

   ----------IMPEACHMENT: Start--------

   Acquisition of the right by the English House of Commons.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1413-1422.


   Revival of the right.

   In the English Parliament of 1620-21 (reign of James I.), "on
   the motion of the Ex-Chief Justice, Sir Edward Coke, a
   committee of inquiry into grievances had been early appointed.
   The first abuse to which their attention was directed was that
   of monopolies, and this led to the revival of the ancient
   right of parliamentary impeachment—the solemn accusation of
   an individual by the Commons at the bar of the Lords—which
   had lain dormant since the impeachment of the Duke of Suffolk
   in 1449. Under the Tudors impeachments had fallen into disuse,
   partly through the subservience of the Commons, and partly
   through the preference of those sovereigns for bills of
   attainder, or of pains and penalties. Moreover, the power
   wielded by the Crown through the Star Chamber enabled it to
   inflict punishment for many state offences without resorting
   to the assistance of Parliament. With the revival of the
   spirit of liberty in the reign of James I., the practice of
   impeachment revived also, and was energetically used by the
   Commons in the interest alike of public justice and of popular

      T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      chapter 13.

   ----------IMPEACHMENT: End--------

   Warren Hastings.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1795.

   President Johnson.



      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.

   ----------IMPERATOR: Start--------


   "There can be no doubt that the title Imperator properly
   signifies one invested with Imperium, and it may very probably
   have been assumed in ancient times by every general on whom
   Imperium had been bestowed by a Lex Curiata. It is, however,
   equally certain, that in those periods of the republic with
   the history and usages of which we are most familiar, the
   title Imperator was not assumed as a matter of course by those
   who had received Imperium, but was, on the contrary, a much
   valued and eagerly coveted distinction. Properly speaking, it
   seems to have been in the gift of the soldiers, who hailed
   their victorious leader by this appellation on the field of
   battle; but occasionally, especially towards the end of the
   commonwealth, it was conferred by a vote of the Senate. …
   But the designation Imperator was employed under the empire in
   a manner and with a force altogether distinct from that which
   we have been considering. On this point we have the distinct
   testimony of Dion Cassius (xliii. 44, comp. liii. 17), who
   tells us that, in B. C. 46, the Senate bestowed upon Julius
   Cæsar the title of Imperator, not in the sense in which it had
   hitherto been applied, as a term of military distinction, but
   as the peculiar and befitting appellation of supreme power,
   and in this signification it was transmitted to his
   successors, without, however, suppressing the original import
   of the word. … Imperator, when used to denote supreme power,
   comprehending in fact the force of the titles Dictator and
   Rex, is usually, although not invariably, placed before the
   name of the individual to whom it is applied."

      W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 5.

      See, also,
      ROME: B. C. 45-44.

   Final Signification of the Roman title.

   "When the Roman princes had lost sight of the senate and of
   their ancient capital, they easily forgot the origin and
   nature of their legal power. The civil offices of consul, of
   proconsul, of censor, and of tribune, by the union of which it
   had been formed, betrayed to the people its republican
   extraction. Those modest titles were laid aside; and if they
   still distinguished their high station by the appellation of
   Emperor, or Imperator, that word was understood in a new and
   more dignified sense, and no longer denoted the general of the
   Roman armies, but the sovereign of the Roman world. The name
   of Emperor, which was at first of a military nature, was
   associated with another of a more servile kind. The epithet of
   Dominus, or Lord, in its primitive signification, was
   expressive, not of the authority of a prince over his
   subjects, or of a commander over his soldiers, but of the
   despotic power of a master over his domestic slaves. Viewing
   it in that odious light, it had been rejected with abhorrence
   by the first Cæsars. Their resistance insensibly became more
   feeble, and the name less odious; till at length the style of
   'our Lord and Emperor' was not only bestowed by flattery, but
   was regularly admitted into the laws and public monuments."

      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 13.

      See ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

   ----------IMPERATOR: End--------


      See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.


      and (as affected by the Treaties of Westphalia)
      GERMANY: A. D. 1648.






   "The supreme authority of the magistrates [in the Roman
   Republic], the 'imperium,' embraced not only the military but
   also the judicial power over the citizens. By virtue of the
   imperium a magistrate issued commands to the army, and by
   virtue of the imperium he sat in judgment over his

      W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 6, chapter 5 (volume 4).

IMPEY, Sir Elijah, Macaulay's injustice to.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.


      See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.


      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; and 1812.




      See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

   Confederate capture of.



   The anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence,
   adopted July 4, 1776.


   The Liberty Bell.

   The hall in the old State House of Pennsylvania, at
   Philadelphia, within which the Declaration of American
   Independence was adopted and promulgated by the Continental
   Congress, on the 4th of July, 1776. The venerable State House,
   which was erected between 1729 and 1734, is carefully
   preserved, and the "Hall of Independence is kept closed,
   except when curious visitors seek entrance, or some special
   occasion opens its doors to the public.
   Nothing now remains of the old furniture of the hall except
   two antique mahogany chairs, covered with red leather, one of
   which was used by Hancock as president, and the other by
   Charles Thomson as secretary of Congress, when the Declaration
   of Independence was adopted. … I ascended to the steeple,
   where hangs, in silent grandeur, the Liberty Bell. It is four
   feet in diameter at the lip, and three inches thick at the
   heaviest part. Its tone is destroyed by a crack, which extends
   from the lip to the crown, passing directly through the names
   of the persons who cast it. An attempt was made to restore
   the tone by sawing the crack wider, but without success. …
   The history of this bell is interesting. In 1752, a bell for
   the State House was imported from England. On the first
   trial-ringing, after its arrival, it was cracked. It was
   recast by Pass and Stow, of Philadelphia, in 1753, under the
   direction of Isaac Norris, Esq., the then speaker of the
   Colonial Assembly. And that is the bell, 'the greatest in
   English America,' which now hangs in the old State House
   steeple and claims our reverence. Upon fillets around its
   crown, cast there twenty-three years before the Continental
   Congress met in the State House, are the words of Holy Writ:
   'Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the
   inhabitants thereof.' How prophetic! Beneath that very bell
   the representatives of the thirteen colonies 'proclaimed
   liberty.' Ay, and when the debates were ended, and the result
   was announced, on the 4th of July, 1776, the iron tongue of
   that very bell first 'proclaimed liberty throughout all the
   land, unto all the inhabitants thereof,' by ringing out the
   joyful annunciation for more than two hours."

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field-book of the Revolution,
      volume 2, chapter 3.

      ALSO IN:
      J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott,
      History of Philadelphia,
      volume I, chapters 15 and 17.



   ----------INDEPENDENTS: Start--------

   Their origin and opinions.

   "The Puritans continued members of the church, only pursuing
   courses of their own in administering the ordinances, and it
   was not till about the middle of the reign of Elizabeth that
   the disposition was manifested among them to break away from
   the church altogether, and to form communities of their own.
   And then it was but a few of them who took this course: the
   more sober part remained in the church. The communities of
   persons who separated themselves were formed chiefly in
   London: there were very few in the distant counties, and those
   had no long continuance. It was not till the time of the Civil
   Wars that such bodies of Separatists, as they were called, or
   Congregationalists, or Independents, became numerous. At first
   they were often called Brownist churches, from Robert Brown, a
   divine of the time, who was for a while a zealous maintainer
   of the duty of separation."

      J. Hunter,
      The Founders of New Plymouth,
      pages 12-13.

   "The peculiar tenet of Independency … consists in the belief
   that the only organization recognised in the primitive Church
   was that of the voluntary association of believers into local
   congregations, each choosing its own office-bearers and
   managing its own affairs, independently of neighbouring
   congregations, though willing occasionally to hold friendly
   conferences with such neighbouring congregations, and to
   profit by the collective advice. Gradually, it is asserted,
   this right or habit of occasional friendly conference between
   neighbouring congregations had been mismanaged and abused,
   until the true independency of each voluntary society of
   Christians was forgotten, and authority came to be vested in
   Synods or Councils of the office-bearers of the churches of a
   district or province. This usurpation of power by Synods or
   Councils, it is said, was as much a corruption of the
   primitive Church-discipline as was Prelacy itself. … So, I
   believe, though with varieties of expression, English
   Independents argue now. But, while they thus seek the original
   warrant for their clews in the New Testament and in the
   practice of the primitive Church, … they admit that the
   theory of Independency had to be worked out afresh by a new
   process of the English mind in the 16th and 17th centuries,
   and they are content, I believe, that the crude immediate
   beginning of that process should be sought in the opinions
   propagated, between 1580 and 1590, by the erratic Robert
   Brown, a Rutlandshire man, bred at Cambridge, who had become a
   preacher at Norwich. … Though Brown himself had vanished
   from public view since 1590, the Brownists, or Separatists, as
   they were called, had persisted in their course, through
   execration and persecution, as a sect of outlaws beyond the
   pale of ordinary Puritanism, and with whom moderate Puritans
   disowned connexion or sympathy. One hears of considerable
   numbers of them in the shires of Norfolk and Essex, and
   throughout Wales; and there was a central association of them
   in London, holding conventicles in the fields, or shifting
   from meeting-house to meeting-house in the suburbs, so as to
   elude Whitgift's ecclesiastical police. At length, in 1592,
   the police broke in upon one of the meetings of the London
   Brownists at Islington. … There ensued a vengeance far more
   ruthless than the Government dared against Puritans in
   general. Six of the leaders were brought to the scaffold. …
   Among the observers of these severities was Francis Bacon,
   then rising into eminence as a politician and lawyer. His
   feeling on the subject was thus expressed at the time: 'As for
   those which we call Brownists, being, when they were at the
   most, a very small number of very silly and base people here
   and there in corners dispersed, they are now (thanks be to
   God), by the good remedies that have been used, suppressed and
   worn out, so as there is scarce any news of them.' … Bacon
   was mistaken in supposing that Brownism was extinguished.
   Hospitable Holland received and sheltered what England cast

      D. Masson,
      Life of John Milton,
      volume 2, book 4, sections 1-2.

   "The name 'Brownist' had never been willingly borne by most of
   those who had accepted the distinguishing doctrine of the
   heresiarch to whom it related. Nor was it without reason that
   a distinction was alleged, and a new name preferred, when,
   relaxing the offensive severity of Brown's system, some who
   had adopted his tenet of the absolute independence of churches
   came to differ from him respecting the duty of avoiding and
   denouncing dissentients from it as rebellious, apostate,
   blasphemous, antichristian and accursed.
   To this amendment of 'Brownism' the mature reflections and
   studies of the excellent Robinson of Leyden conducted him; and
   with reference to it he and his followers were sometimes
   called 'Semi-separatists.' Such a deference to reason and to
   charity gave a new position and attractiveness to the sect,
   and appears to have been considered as entitling Robinson to
   the character of 'father of the Independents.' Immediately on
   the meeting of the Long Parliament [1640], 'the Brownists, or
   Independents, who had assembled in private, and shifted from
   house to house for twenty or thirty years, resumed their
   courage, and showed themselves in public.' During this period
   of the obscurity of a sect which, when arrived at its full
   vigor, was to give law to the mother country, the history of
   the progress of its principles is mainly to be sought in New
   England. … Their opponents and their votaries alike referred
   to Massachusetts as the source of the potent element which had
   made its appearance in the religious politics of England."

      J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      book 2, chapter 2 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      D. Neal,
      History of the Puritans,
      volume 2, chapters 1, 2 and 7.

      L. Bacon,
      Genesis of the New England Churches.

      B. Hanbury,
      Historical Memorials of the Independents,
      volume 1.

      G. Punchard,
      History of Congregationalism,
      volume 3.

      H. M. Dexter,
      The Congregationalism of the last 300 Years,
      lectures 1-5.

      See, also,
      ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640, and PURITANS:

INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.
   The church at Scrooby and its migration to Holland.

   "The flimsiness of Brown's moral texture prevented him from
   becoming the leader in the Puritan exodus to New England. That
   honour was reserved for William Brewster, son of a country
   gentleman who had for many years been postmaster at Scrooby."
   After King James' Hampton Court Conference with the Puritan
   divines, in 1604, and his threatening words to them,
   nonconformity began to assume among the churches more
   decidedly the form of secession. "The key-note of the conflict
   was struck at Scrooby. Staunch Puritan as he was, Brewster had
   not hitherto favoured the extreme measures of the Separatists.
   Now he withdrew from the church, and gathered together a
   company of men and women who met on Sunday for divine service
   in his own drawing-room at Scrooby Manor. In organizing this
   independent Congregationalist society, Brewster was powerfully
   aided by John Robinson, a native of Lincolnshire. Robinson was
   then thirty years of age, and had taken his master's degree at
   Cambridge in 1600. He was a man of great learning and rare
   sweetness of temper, and was moreover distinguished for a
   broad and tolerant habit of mind too seldom found among the
   Puritans of that day. Friendly and unfriendly writers alike
   bear witness to his spirit of Christian charity and the
   comparatively slight value which he attached to orthodoxy in
   points of doctrine; and we can hardly be wrong in supposing
   that the comparatively tolerant behaviour of the Plymouth
   colonists, whereby they were contrasted with the settlers of
   Massachusetts, was in some measure due to the abiding
   influence of the teachings of this admirable man. Another
   important member of the Scrooby congregation was William
   Bradford, of the neighbouring village of Austerfield, then a
   lad of seventeen years, but already remarkable for maturity of
   intelligence and weight of character, afterward governor of
   Plymouth for nearly thirty years, he became the historian of
   his colony; and to his picturesque chronicle, written in pure
   and vigorous English, we are indebted for most that we know of
   the migration that started from Scrooby and ended in Plymouth.
   It was in 1606—two years after King James's truculent
   threat—that this independent church of Scrooby was organized.
   Another year had not elapsed before its members had suffered
   so much at the hands of officers of the law, that they began
   to think of following the example of former heretics and
   escaping to Holland. After an unsuccessful attempt in the
   autumn of 1607, they at length succeeded a few months later in
   accomplishing their flight to Amsterdam, where they hoped to
   find a home. But here they found the English exiles who had
   preceded them so fiercely involved in doctrinal controversies,
   that they decided to go further in search of peace and quiet:
   This decision, which we may ascribe to Robinson's wise
   counsels, served to keep the society of Pilgrims from getting
   divided and scattered. They reached Leyden in 1609, just as
   the Spanish government had sullenly abandoned the hopeless
   task of conquering the Dutch, and had granted to Holland the
   Twelve Years Truce. During eleven of these twelve years the
   Pilgrims remained in Leyden, supporting themselves by various
   occupations, while their numbers increased from 300 to more
   than 1,000. … In spite of the relief from persecution,
   however, the Pilgrims were not fully satisfied with their new
   home. The expiration of the truce with Spain might prove that
   this relief was only temporary; and at any rate, complete
   toleration did not fill the measure of their wants. Had they
   come to Holland as scattered bands of refugees, they might
   have been absorbed into the Dutch population, as Huguenot
   refugees have been absorbed in Germany, England, and America.
   But they had come as an organized community, and absorption
   into a foreign nation was something to be dreaded. They wished
   to preserve their English speech and English traditions, keep
   up their organization, and find some favoured spot where they
   might lay the corner-stone of a great Christian state. The
   spirit of nationality was strong in them; the spirit of
   self-government was strong in them; and the only thing which
   could satisfy these feelings was such a migration as had not
   been seen since ancient times, a migration like that of
   Phokaians to Massilia or Tyrians to Carthage. It was too late
   in the world's history to carry out such a scheme upon
   European soil. Every acre of territory there was appropriated.
   The only favourable outlook was upon the Atlantic coast of
   America, where English cruisers had now successfully disputed
   the pretensions of Spain, and where after forty years of
   disappointment and disaster a flourishing colony had at length
   been founded in Virginia."

      J. Fiske,
      The Beginnings of New England,
      chapter 2.

      ALSO IN:
      G. Punchard,
      History of Congregationalism,
      volume 1, chapters 12-15.

      G. Sumner,
      Memoirs of the Pilgrims at Leyden
      (Massachusetts Historical Society Collection, 3d series,
      volume 9).

      A. Steele,
      Life and Time of Brewster,
      chapters 8-14.

      D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
      chapter 17 (volume 2).


INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1617-1620.
   Preparations for the exodus to New England.

   "'Upon their talk of removing, sundry of the Dutch would have
   them go under them, and made them large offers'; but an inborn
   love for the English nation and for their mother tongue led
   them to the generous purpose of recovering the protection of
   England by enlarging her dominions. They were 'restless' with
   the desire to remove to 'the most northern parts of Virginia,'
   hoping, under the general government of that province, 'to
   live in a distinct body by themselves.' To obtain the consent
   of the London Company, John Carver, with Robert Cushman, in
   1617, repaired to England. They took with them 'seven
   articles,' from the members of the church at Leyden, to be
   submitted to the council in England for Virginia. These
   articles discussed the relations which, as separatists in
   religion, they bore to their prince; and they adopted the
   theory which the admonitions of Luther and a century of
   persecution had developed as the common rule of plebeian
   sectaries on the continent of Europe. They expressed their
   concurrence in the creed of the Anglican church, and a desire
   of spiritual communion with its members. Toward the king and
   all civil authority derived from him, including the civil
   authority of bishops, they promised, as they would have done
   to Nero and the Roman pontifex, 'obedience in all things,
   active if the thing commanded be not against God's word, or
   passive if it be.' They denied all power to ecclesiastical
   bodies, unless it were given by the temporal magistrate. …
   The London company listened very willingly to their proposal,
   so that their agents 'found God going along with them'; and,
   through the influence of 'Sir Edwin Sandys, a religious
   gentleman then living,' a patent might at once have been
   taken, had not the envoys desired first to consult 'the
   multitude' at Leyden. On the 15th of December, 1617, the
   pilgrims transmitted their formal request, signed by the hands
   of the greatest part of the congregation. … The messengers
   of the pilgrims, satisfied with their reception by the
   Virginia company, petitioned the king for liberty of religion,
   to be confirmed under the king's broad seal. But here they
   encountered insurmountable difficulties. … Even while the
   negotiations were pending, a royal declaration constrained the
   Puritans of Lancashire to conform or leave the kingdom; and
   nothing more could be obtained for the wilds of America than
   an informal promise of neglect. On this the community relied,
   being advised not to entangle themselves with the bishops. 'If
   there should afterward be a purpose to wrong us,' thus they
   communed with themselves, 'though we had a seal as broad as
   the house-floor, there would be means enough found to recall
   or reverse it. We must rest herein on God's providence.'
   Better hopes seemed to dawn when, in 1619, the London company
   for Virginia elected for their treasurer Sir Edwin Sandys, who
   from the first had befriended the pilgrims. Under his
   presidency, so writes one of their number, the members of the
   company in their open court 'demanded our ends of going; which
   being related, they said the thing was of God, and granted a
   large patent.' As it was taken in the name of one who failed
   to accompany the expedition [Mr. John Wincob], the patent was
   never of any service. And, besides, the pilgrims, after
   investing all their own means, had not sufficient capital to
   execute their schemes. In this extremity, Robinson looked for
   aid to the Dutch. He and his people and their friends, to the
   number of 400 families, professed themselves well inclined to
   emigrate to the country on the Hudson, and to plant there a
   new commonwealth under the command of the stadholder and the
   states general. The 'West India company was willing to
   transport them without charge, and to furnish them with
   cattle; but when its directors petitioned the states general
   to promise protection to the enterprise against all violence
   from other potentates, the request was found to be in conflict
   with the policy of the Dutch republic, and was refused. The
   members of the church of Leyden, ceasing 'to meddle with the
   Dutch, or to depend too much on the Virginia company,' now
   trusted to their own resources and the aid of private friends.
   The fisheries had commended American expeditions to English
   merchants; and the agents from Leyden were able to form a
   partnership between their employers and men of business in
   London. The services of each emigrant were rated as a capital
   of £10, and belonged to the company; all profits were to be
   reserved till the end of seven years, when the whole amount,
   and all houses and land, gardens and fields, were to be
   divided among the share-holders according to their respective
   interests. The London merchant, who risked £100, would receive
   for his money tenfold as much as the penniless laborer for his
   services. This arrangement threatened a seven years' check to
   the pecuniary prosperity of the community; yet, as it did not
   interfere with civil rights or religion, it was accepted. And
   now, in July, 1620, the English at Leyden, trusting in God and
   in themselves, made ready for their departure."

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      part 1, chapter 12 (volume 1).

   The exodus of the Pilgrims to New England.


INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1646-1649.
   In the English Civil War.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1646 (MARCH);
      1647 (APRIL-AUGUST), and after.

   ----------INDEPENDENTS: End--------


      See PAPACY: A. D. 1559-1595.

   ----------INDIA: Start--------

   The name.

   "To us … it seems natural that the whole country which is
   marked off from Asia by the great barrier of the Himalaya and
   the Suleiman range should have a single name. But it has not
   always seemed so. The Greeks had but a very vague idea of this
   country. To them for a long time the word India was for
   practical purposes what it was etymologically, the province of
   the Indus. When they say that Alexander invaded India, they
   refer to the Punjab. At a later time they obtained some
   information about the valley of the Ganges, but little or none
   about the Deccan. Meanwhile in India itself it did not seem so
   natural as it seems to us to give one name to the whole
   region. For there is a very marked difference between the
   northern and southern parts of it.
   The great Aryan community which spoke Sanscrit and invented
   Brahminism spread itself chiefly from the Punjab along the
   great valley of the Ganges; but not at first far southward.
   Accordingly the name Hindostan properly belongs to this
   northern region. In the South or peninsula we find other races
   and non-Aryan languages. … It appears then that India is not
   a political name, but only a geographical expression like
   Europe or Africa."

      J. R. Seeley,
      The Expansion of England,
      pages 221-222.

   "The name 'Hindustan' … is not used by the natives as it has
   been employed by writers of books and map-makers in Europe.
   … The word really means 'the land of the Hindus'; the
   northern part of the Peninsula, distinguished from the
   'Deccan,' from which it is parted by the river Narbada. …
   The word Hindu' is of Zend (ancient Persian) origin, and may
   be taken to denote 'river-people,' so named, perhaps, from
   having first appeared on the line of the Indus, q. d., 'the

      E. G. Keene,
      Sketch of the History of Hindustan,
      page 1.

   "Sinde, India, and Hindu-stan are various representatives of
   the same native word. 'Hindu' is the oldest known form, since
   it occurs in one of the most ancient portions of the
   Zendavesta. The Greeks and Romans sometimes called the river
   Sindus, instead of Indus."

      G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
      chapter 1, note.

   The aboriginal inhabitants.

   "Our earliest glimpses of India disclose two races struggling
   for the soil. The one was a fair-skinned people, which had
   lately entered by the north-western passes,—a people who
   called themselves Aryan, literally of 'noble' lineage,
   speaking a stately language, worshipping friendly and powerful
   gods. These Aryans became the Brahmans and Rajputs of India.
   The other race was of a lower type, who had long dwelt in the
   land, and whom the lordly newcomers drove back into the
   mountains, or reduced to servitude on the plains. The
   comparatively pure descendants of these two races are now
   nearly equal in numbers; the intermediate castes, sprung
   chiefly from the ruder stock, make up the mass of the present
   Indian population. … The victorious Aryans called the early
   tribes Dasyus, or 'enemies,' and Dasas, or 'slaves.' The
   Aryans entered India from the colder north, and prided
   themselves on their fair complexion. Their Sanskrit word for
   'colour' (varna) came to mean 'race' or 'caste.' The old Aryan
   poets, who composed the Veda at least 3,000 and perhaps 4,000
   years ago, praised their bright gods, who, 'slaying the
   Dasyus, protected the Aryan colour;' who, 'subjected the
   black-skin to the Aryan man.' They tell us of their own
   'stormy deities, who rush on like furious bulls and scatter
   the black-skin.' Moreover, the Aryan, with his finely-formed
   features, loathed the squat Mongolian faces of the Aborigines.
   One Vedic poet speaks of the non-Aryans as 'noseless' or
   flat-nosed, while another praises his own 'beautiful-nosed'
   gods. … Nevertheless all the non-Aryans could not have been
   savages. We hear of wealthy Dasyus or non-Aryans; and the
   Vedic hymns speak of their 'seven castles' and 'ninety forts.'
   The Aryans afterwards made alliance with non-Aryan tribes; and
   some of the most powerful kingdoms of India were ruled by
   non-Aryan kings. … Let us now examine these primitive
   peoples as they exist at the present day. Thrust back by the
   Aryan invaders from the plains, they have lain hidden away in
   the mountains, like the remains of extinct animals found in
   hill-caves. India thus forms a great museum of races, in which
   we can study man from his lowest to his highest stages of
   culture. … Among the rudest fragments of mankind are the
   isolated Andaman islanders, or non-Aryans of the Bay of
   Bengal. The Arab and early European voyagers described them as
   dog-faced man-eaters. The English officers sent to the islands
   in 1855 to establish a settlement, found themselves in the
   midst of naked cannibals; who daubed themselves at festivals
   with red earth, and mourned for their dead friends by
   plastering themselves with dark mud. … The Anamalai hills,
   in Southern Madras, form the refuge of many non-Aryan tribes.
   The long-haired, wild-looking Puliars live on jungle products,
   mice, or any small animals they can catch; and worship demons.
   Another clan, the Mundavers, have no fixed dwellings, but
   wander over the innermost hills with their cattle. They
   shelter themselves in caves or under little leaf sheds, and
   seldom remain in one spot more than a year. The thick-lipped,
   small-bodied Kaders, 'Lords of the Hills,' are a remnant of a
   higher race. They live by the chase, and wield some influence
   over the ruder forest-folk. These hills abound in the great
   stone monuments (kistvaens and dolmens) which the ancient
   non-Aryans erected over their dead. The Nairs, or hillmen of
   South-Western India, still keep up the old system of
   polyandry, according to which one woman is the wife of several
   husbands, and a man's property descends not to his own sons,
   but to his sister's children. This system also appears among
   the non-Aryan tribes of the Himalayas at the opposite end of
   India. In the Central Provinces, the non-Aryan races form a
   large part of the population. In certain localities they
   amount to one-half of the inhabitants. Their most important
   race, the Gonds, have made advances in civilisation; but the
   wilder tribes still cling to the forest, and live by the
   chase. … The Maris fly from their grass-built huts on the
   approach of a stranger. … Farther to the north-east, in the
   Tributary States of Orissa, there is a poor tribe, 10,000 in
   number, of Juangs or Patuas, literally the 'leaf-wearers.'
   Until lately their women wore no clothes, but only a few
   strings of beads around the waist, with a bunch of leaves
   before and behind. … Proceeding to the northern boundary of
   India, we find the slopes and spurs of the Himalayas peopled
   by a great variety of rude non-Aryan tribes. Some of the Assam
   hillmen have no word for expressing distance by miles or by
   any land-measure, but reckon the length of a journey by the
   number of plugs of tobacco or pan which they chew upon the
   way. They hate work; and, as a rule, they are fierce, black,
   undersized, and ill-fed. … Many of the aboriginal tribes,
   therefore, remain in the same early stage of human progress as
   that ascribed to them by the Vedic poets more than 3,000 years
   ago. But others have made great advances, and form communities
   of a well-developed type. These higher races, like the ruder
   ones, are scattered over the length and breadth of India, and
   I must confine myself to a very brief account of two of
   them,—the Santals and the Kandhs. The Santals have their
   home among the hills which abut on the valley of the Ganges in
   Lower Bengal.
   They dwell in villages of their own, apart from the people of
   the plains, and number about a million. Although still
   clinging to many customs of a hunting forest tribe, they have
   learned the use of the plough, and settled down into skilful
   husbandmen. Each hamlet is governed by its own headman, who is
   supposed to be a descendant of the original founder of the
   village. … Until near the end of the last century, the
   Santals lived by plundering the adjacent plains. But under
   British rule they settled down into peaceful cultivators. …
   The Kandhs, literally 'The Mountaineers,' a tribe about
   100,000 strong, inhabit the steep and forest-covered ranges
   which rise from the Orissa coast. Their idea of government is
   purely patriarchal. The family is strictly ruled by the
   father. The grown-up sons have no property during his life,
   but live in his house with their wives and children, and all
   share the common meal prepared by the grandmother. The head of
   the tribe is usually the eldest son of the patriarchal family.
   … The Kandh system of tillage represents a stage half way
   between the migratory cultivation of the ruder non-Aryan
   tribes and the settled agriculture of the Hindus. … Whence
   came these primitive peoples, whom the Aryan invaders found in
   the land more than 3,000 years ago, and who are still
   scattered over India, the fragments of a pre-historic world?
   Written annals they do not possess. Their traditions tell us
   little. But from their languages we find that they belong to
   three stocks. First, the Tibeto-Burman tribes, who entered
   India from the north-east, and still cling to the skirts of
   the Himalayas. Second, the Kolarians, who also seem to have
   entered Bengal by the north-eastern passes. They dwell chiefly
   along the north-eastern ranges of the three-sided tableland
   which covers the southern half of India. Third, the
   Dravidians, who appear, on the other hand, to have found their
   way into the Punjab by the north-western passes. They now
   inhabit the southern part of the three-sided tableland as far
   down as Cape Comorin, the southernmost point of India. As a
   rule, the non-Aryan races, when fairly treated, are truthful,
   loyal, and kind. Those in the hills make good soldiers; while
   even the thieving tribes of the plains can be turned into
   clever police. The non-Aryan castes of Madras supplied the
   troops which conquered Southern India for the British; and
   some of them fought at the battle of Plassey, which won for us
   Bengal. The gallant Gurkhas, a non-Aryan tribe of the
   Himalayas, now rank among the bravest regiments in our Indian
   army, and lately covered themselves with honour in

      W. W. Hunter,
      Brief History of the Indian People,
      chapters 2-3.

      ALSO IN:
      R. Brown,
      Races of Mankind,
      volume 4, chapter 1.

      R. G. Latham,
      Ethnology of British Colonies and Dependencies,
      chapter 3.

      See, also,

   The immigration and conquests of the Aryas.
   The hymns and prayers of their religion.

   "The immigration of the Aryas into India took place from the
   west. They stand in the closest relation to the inhabitants of
   the table-land of Iran, especially the inhabitants of the
   eastern half. These also call themselves Aryas, though among
   them the word becomes Airya, or Ariya, and among the Greeks
   Arioi. The language of the Aryas is in the closest connection
   with that of the Avesta, the religious books of Iran, and in
   very close connection with the language of the monuments of
   Darius and Xerxes, in the western half of that region. The
   religious conceptions of the Iranians and Indians exhibit
   striking traits of a homogeneous character. A considerable
   number of the names of gods, of myths, sacrifices, and
   customs, occurs in both nations, though the meaning is not
   always the same, and is sometimes diametrically opposed.
   Moreover, the Aryas in India are at first confined to the
   borders of Iran, the region of the Indus, and the Panjab.
   Here; in the west, the Aryas had their most extensive
   settlements, and their oldest monuments frequently mention the
   Indus, but not the Ganges. Even the name by which the Aryas
   denote the land to the south of the Vindhyas, Dakshinapatha
   (Deccan), i. e., path to the right, confirms the fact already
   established, that the Aryas came from the west. From this it
   is beyond a doubt that the Aryas, descending from the heights
   of Iran, first occupied the valley of the Indus and the five
   tributary streams, which combine and flow into the river from
   the north-east, and they spread as far as they found pastures
   and arable land, i. e., as far eastward as the desert which
   separates the valley of the Indus from the Ganges. The river
   which irrigated their land, watered their pastures, and shaped
   the course of their lives they called Sindhu (in Pliny,
   Sindus), i. e., the river. It is, no doubt, the region of the
   Indus, with the Panjab, which is meant in the Avesta by the
   land hapta hindu (hendu), i. e., the seven streams. The
   inscriptions of Darius call the dwellers on the Indus Idhus.
   These names the Greeks render by Indos and Indoi. … Products
   of India, and among them such as do not belong to the land of
   the Indus, were exported from the land about 1000 B. C., under
   names given to them by the Aryas, and therefore the Aryas must
   have been settled there for centuries previously. For this
   reason, and it is confirmed by facts which will appear further
   on, we may assume that the Aryas descended into the valley of
   the Indus about the year 2000 B. C., i. e., about the time
   when the kingdom of Elam was predominant in the valley of the
   Euphrates and Tigris, when Assyria still stood under the
   dominion of Babylon, and the kingdom of Memphis was ruled by
   the Hyksos. … The oldest evidence of the life of the Aryas,
   whose immigration into the region of the Indus and settlement
   there we have been able to fix about 2000 B. C., is given in a
   collection of prayers and hymns of praise, the Rigveda, i. e.,
   'the knowledge of thanksgiving.' It is a selection or
   collection of poems and invocations in the possession of the
   priestly families, of hymns and prayers arising in these
   families, and sung and preserved by them. … We can ascertain
   with exactness the region in which the greater number of these
   poems grew up. The Indus is especially the object of praise:
   the 'seven rivers' are mentioned as the dwelling-place of the
   Aryas. This aggregate of seven is made up of the Indus itself
   and the five streams which unite and flow into it from the
   east—the Vitasta, Asikni, Iravati, Vipaça, Çatadru. The
   seventh river is the Sarasvati, which is expressly named 'the
   seven-sistered.' The land of the seven rivers is, as has
   already been remarked, known to the Iranians. The 'Sapta
   sindhava' of the Rigveda are, no doubt, the hapta hendu of the
   Avesta, and in the form Harahvaiti, the Arachotus of the Greeks,
   we again find the Sarasvati in the east of the table-land of
   As the Yamuna and the Ganges are only mentioned in passing …
   and the Vindhya mountains and Narmadas are not mentioned at
   all, the conclusion is certain that, at the time when the
   songs of the Aryas were composed, the nation was confined to
   the land of the Panjab, though they may have already begun to
   move eastward beyond the valley of the Sarasvati. We gather
   from the songs of the Rigveda that the Aryas on the Indus were
   not one civic community. They were governed by a number of
   princes (raja). Some of these ruled on the bank of the Indus,
   others in the neighbourhood of the Sarasvati. They sometimes
   combined; they also fought not against the Dasyus only, but
   against each other."

      M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 5, chapters 1-2 (volume 4).

   "When the Indian branch of the Aryan family settled down in
   the land of the seven rivers. … now the Panjab, about the
   15th century B. C., their religion was still nature-worship.
   It was still adoration of the forces which were everywhere in
   operation around them for production, destruction, and
   reproduction. But it was physiolatry developing itself more
   distinctly into forms of Theism, Polytheism, Anthropomorphism,
   and Pantheism. The phenomena of nature were thought of as
   something more than radiant beings, and something more than
   powerful forces. … They were addressed as kings, fathers,
   guardians, friends, benefactors, guests. They were invoked in
   formal hymns and prayers (mantras), in set metres (chandas).
   These hymns were composed in an early form of the Sanskrit
   language, at different times—perhaps during several
   centuries, from the 15th to the 10th B. C.—by men of light
   and leading (Rishis) among the Indo-Aryan immigrants, who were
   afterwards held in the highest veneration as patriarchal
   saints. Eventually the hymns were believed to have been
   directly revealed to, rather than composed by, these Rishis,
   and were then called divine knowledge (Veda), or the eternal
   word heard (sruti), and transmitted by them. These Mantras or
   hymns were arranged in three principal collections or
   continuous texts (Samhitas). The first and earliest was called
   the Hymn-veda (Rig-veda). It was a collection of 1,017 hymns,
   arranged for mere reading or reciting. This was the first
   bible of the Hindu religion, and the special bible of Vedism.
   … Vedism was the earliest form of the religion of the Indian
   branch of the great Aryan family. … Brahmanism grew out of
   Vedism. It taught the merging of all the forces of Nature in
   one universal spiritual Being—the only real Entity—which,
   when unmanifested and impersonal, was called Brahma (neuter);
   when manifested as a personal creator, was called Brahmā
   (masculine); and when manifested in the highest order of men,
   was called Brāhmana ('the Brāhmans'). Brahmanism was rather a
   philosophy than a religion, and in its fundamental doctrine
   was spiritual Pantheism. Hinduism grew out of Brahmanism. It
   was Brahmanism, so to speak, run to seed and spread out into a
   confused tangle of divine personalities and incarnations. …
   Yet Hinduism is distinct from Brahmanism, and chiefly in
   this—that it takes little account of the primordial,
   impersonal Being Brahma, and wholly neglects its personal
   manifestation Brahmā, substituting, in place of both Brahma
   and Brahmā., the two popular personal deities Siva and Vishnu.
   Be it noted, however, that the employment of the term Hinduism
   is wholly arbitrary and confessedly unsatisfactory. Unhappily
   there is no other expression sufficiently comprehensive. …
   Hinduism is Brahmanism modified by the creeds and
   superstitions of Buddhists [see below: B. C. 312—] and
   Non-Aryan races of all kinds, including Dravidians, Kolarians,
   and perhaps pre-Kolarian aborigines. It has even been modified
   by ideas imported from the religions of later conquering
   races, such as Islam and Christianity."

      M. Williams,
      Religious Thought and Life in India,
      part 1, chapter 1, and introduction.

      ALSO IN:
      R. Mitra,

      F. Max Müller,
      History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature.

      F. Max Müller, editor,
      Sacred Books of the East,
      volume. 1, and others.

      A. Barth,
      Religions of India.

      Rig-Veda Sanhita,
      translated by H. H. Wilson.

      See, also,

INDIA: 6th Century, B. C.
   Invasion of Darius.

      See PERSIA: B. C.621-493.

INDIA: B. C. 327-312.
   Invasion and conquests of Alexander the Great.
   Expulsion of the Greeks.
   Rise of the empire of Chandragupta.

   "The year B. C. 327 marks an important era in the history of
   India. More than two centuries are supposed to have elapsed
   since the death of Gotama Buddha. The great empire of Magadha
   was apparently falling into anarchy, but Brahmanism and
   Buddhism were still expounding their respective dogmas on the
   banks of the Ganges. At this juncture Alexander of Macedon was
   leading an army of Greeks down the Cabul river towards the
   river Indus, which at that time formed the western frontier of
   the Punjab.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.

   … The design of Alexander was to conquer all the regions
   westward of the Indus, including the territory of Cabul, and
   then to cross the Indus in the neighbourhood of Attock, and
   march through the Punjab in a south-easterly direction,
   crossing all the tributary rivers on his way; and finally to
   pass down the valley of the Ganges and Jumna, via Delhi and
   Agra, and conquer the great Gangetic empire of Magadha or
   Pataliputra between the ancient cities of Prayaga and Gour.
   … After crossing the Indus, there were at least three
   kingdoms in the Punjab to be subdued one after the other,
   namely;—that of Taxiles between the Indus and the Jhelum;
   that of Porus the elder between the Jhelum and the Chenab; and
   that of Porus the younger between the Chenab and the Ravee.
   … When Alexander had fully established his authority in
   Cabul he crossed the Indus into the Punjab. Here he halted
   some time at the city of Taxila [Taxiles, the king, having
   submitted in advance], and then marched to the river Jhelum,
   and found that Porus the elder was encamped on the opposite
   bank with a large force of cavalry and infantry, together with
   chariots and elephants. The decisive battle which followed on
   the Jhelum is one of the most remarkable actions in ancient
   story. … Porus fought with a valour which excited the
   admiration of Alexander, but was at last wounded and compelled
   to fly. Ultimately he was induced to tender his submission.
   … The victory over Porus established the ascendancy of
   Alexander in the Punjab." It "not only decided the question
   between himself and Porus, but enabled him to open up a new
   communication with Persia, via the river Indus and the Indian
   He sent out woodmen to cut timber for ship-building in the
   northern forests, and to float it down the Jhelum; and he
   founded two cities, Bukephalia and Nikæa, one on each side of
   the Jhelum. … Whilst the fleet was being constructed,
   Alexander continued his march to the Chenab, and crossed that
   river into the dominions of Porus the younger," who fled at
   his approach, and whose kingdom was made over to the elder
   Porus, his uncle. "Alexander next crossed the Ravee, when he
   was called back by" a revolt in his rear, which he suppressed.
   "But meantime the Macedonians had grown weary of their
   campaign in India. … They … resisted every attempt to lead
   them beyond the Sutlej; and Alexander, making a virtue of
   necessity, at last consulted the oracles and found that they
   were unfavourable to an onward movement. … He returned with
   his army to the Jhelum, and embarked on board the fleet with a
   portion of his troops, whilst the remainder of his army
   marched along either bank. In this manner he proceeded almost
   due south through the Punjab and Scinde. … At last he
   reached the Indian Ocean, and beheld for the first time the
   phenomena of the tides; and then landed his army and marched
   through Beloochistan towards Susa, whilst Nearchos conducted
   the fleet to the Persian Gulf, and finally joined him in the
   same city. … Alexander had invaded the Punjab during the
   rainy season of B. C. 327, and reached the Indian Ocean about
   the middle of B. C. 326. Meantime Philip remained at Taxila as
   his lieutenant or deputy, and commanded a garrison of
   mercenaries and a body-guard of Macedonians. When Alexander
   was marching through Beloochistan, on his way to Susa, the
   news reached him that Philip had been murdered by the
   mercenaries, but that nearly all the murderers had been slain
   by the Macedonian body-guards. Alexander immediately
   despatched letters directing the Macedonian Eudemos to carry
   on the government in conjunction with Taxiles, until he could
   appoint another deputy; and this provisional arrangement seems
   to have been continued until the death of Alexander in B. C.
   323. The political anarchy which followed this catastrophe can
   scarcely be realized. … India was forgotten. Eudemos took
   advantage of the death of Alexander to murder Porus; but was
   ultimately driven out of the Punjab with all his Macedonians
   by an adventurer who was known to the Greeks as Sandrokottos,
   and to the Hindus as Chandragupta. This individual is said to
   have delivered India from a foreign yoke only to substitute
   his own. … By the aid of banditti he captured the city of
   Patali-putra, and obtained the throne; and then drove the
   Greeks out of India, and established his empire over the whole
   of Hindustan and the Punjab."

      J. T. Wheeler,
      History of India: Hindu, Buddhist and Brahmanical,
      chapter 4.

      ALSO IN:
      Anabasis of Alexander
      (translated by Chinnock),
      books 4-6.

      T. A. Dodge,
      chapters 38-43.

INDIA: B. C. 312
   Chandragupta and Asoka.
   The spread of Buddhism and its Brahmanic absorption.

   "The first tolerably trustworthy date in Indian history is the
   era of Candra-gupta (=Sandro-kottus) the founder of the Maurya
   dynasty, who, after making himself master of Pataliputra
   (Palibothra, Patna) and the kingdom of Magadha (Behar),
   extended his dominion over all Hindustan, and presented a
   determined front towards Alexander's successor Seleukos
   Nikator, the date of the commencement of whose reign was about
   312 B. C. When the latter contemplated invading India from his
   kingdom of Bactria, so effectual was the resistance offered by
   Candra-gupta that the Greek thought it politic to form an
   alliance with the Hindu king, and sent his own countryman
   Megasthenes as an ambassador to reside at his court. To this
   circumstance we owe the first authentic account of Indian
   manners, customs, and religious usages by an intelligent
   observer who was not a native, and this narrative of
   Megasthenes, preserved by Strabo, furnishes a basis on which
   we may found a fair inference that Brahmanism and Buddhism
   existed side by side in India on amicable terms in the fourth
   century B. C. There is even ground for believing that King
   Candra-gupta himself was in secret a Buddhist, though in
   public he paid homage to the gods of the Brahmans; at any
   rate, there can be little doubt that his successor Asoka did
   for Buddhism what Constantine did for Christianity—gave an
   impetus to its progress by adopting it as his own creed.
   Buddhism, then, became the state religion, the national faith
   of the whole kingdom of Magadha, and therefore of a great
   portion of India. This Asoka is by some regarded as identical
   with Candra-gupta; at any rate, their characters and much of
   their history are similar. He is probably the same as King
   Priyadarsi, whose edicts on stone pillars enjoining 'Dharma,'
   or the practice of virtue and universal benevolence, are
   scattered over India from Katak in the east and Gujarat in the
   west to Allahabad, Delhi, and Afghanistan on the north-west.
   What then is Buddhism? It is certainly not Brahmanism, yet it
   arose out of Brahmanism, and from the first had much in common
   with it. Brahmanism and Buddhism are closely interwoven with
   each other, yet they are very different from each other.
   Brahmanism is a religion which may be described as all
   theology, for it makes God everything, and everything God.
   Buddhism is no religion at all, and certainly no theology, but
   rather a system of duty, morality, and benevolence, without
   real deity, prayer or priest. The name Buddha is simply an
   epithet meaning the perfectly enlightened one,' or rather one
   who, by perfect knowledge of the truth, is liberated from all
   existence, and who, before his own attainment of Nirvana, or
   'extinction,' reveals to the world the method of obtaining it.
   The Buddha with whom we are concerned was only the last of a
   series of Buddhas who had appeared in previous cycles of the
   universe. He was born at Kapila-vastu, a city and kingdom at
   the foot of the mountains of Nepal, his father Suddhodana
   being the king of that country, and his mother Maya-devi being
   the daughter of King Suprabuddha. Hence he belonged to the
   Kshatriya class, and his family name was Sakya, while his name
   of Gautama (or Gotama) was taken from that of his tribe. He is
   said to have arrived at supreme knowledge under the Bodhi
   tree, or 'tree of wisdom' (familiarly called' the Bo tree'),
   at Gaya, in Behar (Magadha), about the year 588 B. C., and to
   have commenced propagating the new faith at Benares soon
   afterwards. … Buddhism was a protest against the tyranny of
   Brahmanism and caste. According to the Buddha, all men are
   … We have five marked features of Buddhism:

   1. disregard of all caste distinctions;

   2. abolition of animal sacrifice and of vicarious suffering;

   3. great stress laid on the doctrine of transmigration;

   4. great importance assigned to self-mortification, austerity,
   and abstract meditation, as an aid to the suppression of all

   5. concentration of all human desires on the absolute
   extinction of all being.

   There is still a sixth, which is perhaps the most noteworthy
   of all; viz., that the Buddha recognized no supreme deity. The
   only god, he affirmed, is what man himself can become. A
   Buddhist, therefore, never really prays, he only meditates on
   the perfections of the Buddha and the hope of attaining
   Nirvana. … Brahmanism and Buddhism [in India] appear to have
   blended, or, as it were, melted into each other, after each
   had reciprocally parted with something, and each had imparted
   something. At any rate it may be questioned whether Buddhism
   was ever forcibly expelled from any part of India by direct
   persecution, except, perhaps, in a few isolated centres of
   Brahmanical fanaticism, such as the neighbourhood of Benares.
   Even in Benares the Chinese traveller, Hiouen Thsang, found
   Brahmanism and Buddhism flourishing amicably side by side in
   the 7th century of our era. In the South of India the Buddha's
   doctrines seem to have met with acceptance at an early date,
   and Ceylon was probably converted as early as B. C. 240, soon
   after the third Buddhist council held under King Asoka. In
   other parts of India there was probably a period of
   Brahmanical hostility, and perhaps of occasional persecution;
   but eventually Buddhism was taken by the hand, and drawn back
   into the Brahmanical system by the Brahmans themselves, who
   met it half way and ended by boldly adopting the Buddha as an
   incarnation of Vishnu. … Only a small section of the
   Buddhist community resisted all conciliation, and these are
   probably represented by the present sect of Jains [who are
   found in large numbers in various parts of India, especially
   on the western coast]. Be the actual state of the case as it
   may, nothing can be clearer than the fact that Buddhism has
   disappeared from India (the island of Ceylon being excepted),
   and that it has not done so without having largely contributed
   towards the moulding of Brahmanism into the Hinduism of the
   present day."

      M. Williams,
      chapter 6.

      ALSO IN:
      M. Williams (now Sir Monier Monier-Williams),

      H. Oldenburg,

      P. Bigandet,
      Life and Legend of Gaudama.

      A. Lillie,
      Buddha and the Early Buddhists.

      W. W. Rockhill,
      The Life of the Buddha.

INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.
   Under the Ghaznavide and Mameluke empires.

   "Aryan civilisation was … germinating, but it was in
   uncongenial soil. Like the descendants of Abraham and Jacob,
   the invaders mingled with the heathen and learned their ways.
   The older inhabitants were barbarous, multilingual, indolent;
   worshippers less of many gods than of many devils. The fusion
   that ensued was not happy; though the origin and growth of the
   caste system prevented complete union, it facilitated some of
   its evils; the character of the Aryan settlers became
   disastrously affected; the want of commercial communication by
   land and sea tended to perpetuate stagnation. This was the
   state of things upon which the rising tide from Central Asia
   began to flow with resistless pertinacity after the
   Mongolo-Turkish power became established on the Oxus and the
   Helmand. It was not to be wondered at if the Arabs made no
   wide or lasting Indian conquests in the early ages of the
   Musulman era. At a time when they were engaged with the
   Christian Empires of the East and the West, when they were
   spreading the power of the crescent from the borders of
   Khorásán to the Pillars of Hercules, the warriors of Islam had
   perhaps but little temptation to undertake further adventure.
   Certain it is that beyond the confines of Makran and a part of
   Sindh (occupied less than a hundred years after the
   Hijra)—the Arab conquests did not spread in India. It was
   Nasir-ud-Din Sabuktigin—certainly a Merv captive and
   popularly believed a scion of the Sassanian dynasty that once
   ruled Persia—by whom the first Muslim invasion of Hindustan
   was made in durable fashion. His master, Alptigin, having fled
   from the oppression of the Samani dynasty of Bukhara in 962 A.
   D., had founded a principality at Ghazni. Sabuktigin acquired
   his favour, and was able, soon after his death, to acquire the
   succession in 977 A. D. He established his power in the
   Punjab; and his armies are said to have penetrated as far as
   Benares. On his death, 997 A. D., his son, the celebrated
   Sultan Mahmud, succeeded to the Empire extending from Balkh to
   Lahore, if not to Hansi [see TURKS: A. D. 999-1183]. During a
   reign of over thirty years he invaded Hindustan twelve times,
   inflicting terrible carnage on the Hindus, desecrating their
   idols, and demoralising their temples. Mathura, Kanauj,
   Somnath; to such distant and divergent points did his
   enterprises reach. Mahmud died 1030 A. D., and was buried at
   Ghazni, where his monument is still to be seen. For about one
   hundred years the dynasty continued to rule in the Punjab and
   Afghanistan, more and more troubled by the neighbouring tribe
   of Ghor, who in 1187 A. D. took Lahore and put an end to the
   Ghaznavide dynasty. A prince of the Ghorians—variously known,
   but whose name may be taken as Muhammad Bin Sam—was placed in
   a sort of almost independent viceroyalty at Ghazni. In 1191 A.
   D. he led an army against Sirhind, south of the Sutlaj river.
   Rai Pithaura, or Pirthi Rai, a chief of the Chauhans (who had
   lately possessed themselves of Dehli), marched against the
   invaders and defeated them in a battle where Bin Sam had a
   narrow escape from being slain. But the sturdy mountaineers
   would not be denied. Next year they returned" and defeated
   Pithaura. "The towns of Mirat and Dehli fell upon his defeat;
   and their fall was followed a year later by that of Kanauj and
   Benares. The Viceroy's brother dying at this juncture, he
   repaired to his own country to establish his succession. He
   was killed in an expedition, 1206 A. D., and the affairs of
   Hindustan devolved upon his favourite Mameluke, Kutb-ud-din
   Aibak. … When Muhammad bin Sam had gone away, to rule and
   ultimately to perish by violence in his native highlands, his
   acquisitions in Hindustan came under the sway of Kutb-ud-din
   Aibak, a Mameluke, or Turkish slave, who had for a long time
   been his faithful follower. One of the Viceroy's first
   undertakings was to level to the ground the palaces and
   temples of the Hindus at Dehli, and to build, with the
   materials obtained by their destruction, a great Mosque for
   the worship of Allah. … From 1192 to 1206, the year of Bin
   Sam's death, Kutb-ud-din Aibak ruled as Viceroy.
   But it is recorded that the next Emperor—feeling the
   difficulty, perhaps, of exercising any sort of rule over so
   remote a dependency—sent Aibak a patent as 'Sultan,'
   accompanied by a canopy of state, a throne and a diadem.
   Becoming Sultan of Hindustan, the distinguished and fortunate
   Mameluke founded what is known as 'the Slave dynasty.' …
   Aibak died at Lahore, in 1210, from an accident at a game now
   known as 'polo.' He was contemporaneous with the great Mughul
   leader Changiz Khan, by whom, however, he was not molested.
   The chief event of his reign is to be found in his successful
   campaigns in Behar and Northern Bengal. … The Musulman power
   was not universally and firmly established in the Eastern
   Provinces till the reign of Balban (circ. 1282). At the death
   of Aibak the Empire was divided into four great portions. The
   Khiljis represented the power of Islam in Bihar and Bengal;
   the North-West Punjab was under a viceroy named Ilduz, a
   Turkman slave; the valley of the Indus was ruled by another of
   these Mamelukes, named Kabacha; while an attempt was made at
   Dehli to proclaim an incompetent lad, son of the deceased, as
   Sultan. But the Master of the Horse, a third Mameluke named
   Altimsh, was close at hand, and, hurrying up at the invitation
   of influential persons there, speedily put down the movement.
   … Altimsh, having deposed his feeble brother-in-law, became
   Suzerain of the Empire. His satraps were not disposed to
   obedience; and bloody wars broke out, into the details of
   which we need not enter. It will be sufficient to note that
   Ilduz was defeated and slain A. D. 1215. Two years later
   Kabacha came up from Sindh, and seems [to] have enlisted some
   of the Mughul hordes in his armies. These formidable
   barbarians, of whom more anon, were now in force in Khorasan,
   under Changiz in person, assisted by two of his sons.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

   They drove before them the Sultan of Khwarizm (now Khiva), and
   occupied Afghanistan. The fugitive, whose adventures are among
   the most romantic episodes of Eastern history, attempted to
   settle himself in the Panjab; but he was driven out by Altimsh
   and Kabacha in 1223. Two years later Altimsh moved on the
   Khiljis in the Eastern Provinces, occupied Gaur, their
   capital; and proceeding from thence made further conquests
   south and north at the expense of the Hindus. In 1228 he
   turned against Kabacha, the mighty Satrap of Sindh, who was
   routed in battle near Bakkhar, where he committed suicide or
   was accidentally drowned. In 1232-3 the Sultan reduced Gwalior
   (in spite of a stout resistance on the part of the Hindus
   under Milak Deo), slaying 700 prisoners at the door of his
   tent. In 1234 he took the province of Malwa; where he
   demolished the great temples of Bhilsa and Ujain. In the
   following year this puissant warrior of the Crescent succumbed
   to the common conqueror, dying a natural death at Dehli, after
   a glorious reign of twenty-six (lunar) years. … His eldest
   son, who had conducted the war against the Khiljis, had died
   before him, and the Empire was assumed by a younger son,
   Rukn-ud-din Firoz. … [In 1241] Lahore was taken by the
   Mughols with terrific carnage. Troubles ensued; Dehli was
   besieged by the army that had been raised for its defence
   against the Mughols; in May 1242 the city was taken by storm
   and the new Sultan was slain. His successor, Ala-uddin I., was
   a grandson of Altimsh, incompetent and apathetic as young men
   in his position have usually been. The land was partitioned
   among Turkish satraps, and overrun by the Mughols, who
   penetrated as far as Gaur in Bengal. Another horde, led by
   Mangu, grandson of Changiz, and father of the celebrated
   Kiblai Khan, ravaged the Western Punjab. The Sultan marched
   against them and met with a partial success. This turned into
   evil courses the little intellect that he had, a plot was
   organised for his destruction. Ala-ud-din was slain, and his
   uncle Nasir-ud-din was placed upon the vacant throne in June
   1246. Nasir's reign was long, and, so far as his personal
   exploits went, would have been uneventful. But the risings of
   the Hindus and the incursions of the Mughols kept the Empire
   in perpetual turmoil." Nasir was succeeded in 1286-7 by his
   grandson, Kai Kobad. "This unfortunate young man was destined
   to prove the futility of human wisdom. Educated by his stern
   and serious grandfather, his lips had never touched those of a
   girl or a goblet. His sudden elevation turned his head. He
   gave himself up to debauchery, caused his cousin Khusru to be
   murdered, and was himself ultimately killed in his palace at
   Kilokhari, while lying sick of the palsy. With his death
   (1290) came to an end the Mameluke Empire of Hindustan."

      H. G. Keene,
      Sketch of the History of Hindustan,
      book 1, chapters 1-2.

      ALSO IN:
      J. T. Wheeler,
      History of India,
      volume 4, part 1, chapter 2.

      A. Dow,
      History of Hindustan
      (from the Persian of Ferishta),
      volume 1.

INDIA: A. D. 1290-1398.
   From the Afghans to the Moghuls.

   "In 1290 the last Sultan of the Afghan slave dynasty was
   assassinated, and a Sultan ascended the throne at Delhi under
   the name of Jelal-ud-din. He was an old man of seventy, and
   made no mark in history; but he had a nephew, named
   Ala-ud-din, who became a man of renown," and who presently
   acquired the throne by murdering his uncle. "When Ala-ud-din
   was established on the throne at Delhi he sent an army to
   conquer Guzerat." This conquest was followed by that of
   Rajputana. "Meanwhile the Moghuls [Mongols] were very
   troublesome. In the previous reign the uncle of Ala-ud-din had
   enlisted 3,000, and settled them near Delhi; but they were
   turbulent, refractory, and mixed up with every rebellion.
   Ala-ud-din ordered them to be disbanded, and then they tried
   to murder him. Ala-ud-din then ordered a general massacre.
   Thousands are said to have been put to death, and their wives
   and children were sold into slavery. Ala-ud-din was the first
   Muhammadan sovereign who conquered Hindu Rajas in the Dekhan
   and Peninsula. … Ala-ud-din sent his general Malik Kafur to
   invade these southern countries, ransack temples, and carry
   off treasure and tribute. The story is a dreary narrative of
   raid and rapine. … Ala-ud-din died in 1316. His death was
   followed by a Hindu revolt; indeed Hindu influences must have
   been at work at Delhi for many years previously. Ala-ud-din
   had married a Hindu queen; his son had married her daughter.
   Malik Kafur was a Hindu converted to Islam. The leader of the
   revolt at Delhi in 1316 was another Hindu convert to Islam.
   The proceedings of the latter rebel, however, were of a mixed
   character. He was proclaimed Sultan under a Muhammadan name,
   and slaughtered every male of the royal house. Meanwhile his
   Hindu followers set up idols in the mosques, and seated
   themselves on Korans.
   The rebels held possession of Delhi for five months. At the
   end of that time the city was captured by the Turkish governor
   of the Punjab, named Tughlak. The conqueror then ascended the
   throne of Delhi, and founded the dynasty of Tughlak Sultans.
   The Tughlak Sultans would not live at Delhi; they probably
   regarded it as a Hindu volcano. They held their court at
   Tughlakabad, a strong fortress about an hour's drive from old
   Delhi. The transfer of the capital from Delhi to Tughlakabad
   is a standpoint in history. It shows that a time had come when
   the Turk began to fear the Hindu. The conqueror of Delhi died
   in 1325. He was succeeded by a son who has left his mark in
   history. Muhammad Tughlak was a Sultan of grand ideas, but
   blind to all experiences, and deaf to all counsels. He sent
   his armies into the south to restore the Muhammadan supremacy
   which had been shaken by the Hindu revolt. Meanwhile the
   Moghuls invaded the Punjab, and Muhammad Tughlak bribed them
   to go away with gold and jewels. Thus the imperial treasury
   was emptied of all the wealth which had been accumulated by
   Ala-ud-din. The new Sultan tried to improve his finances, but
   only ruined the country by his exactions. … Then followed
   rebellions and revolutions. Bengal revolted, and became a
   separate kingdom under an independent Sultan. The Rajas of the
   Dekhan and Peninsula withheld their tribute. The Muhammadan
   army of the Dekhan broke out into mutiny, and set up a Sultan
   of their own. Muhammad Tughlak saw that all men turned against
   him. He died in 1350, after a reign of twenty-five years. The
   history of Delhi fades away after the death of Muhammad
   Tughlak. A Sultan reigned from 1350 to 1388, named Firuz Shah.
   He is said to have submitted to the dismemberment of the
   empire, and done his best to promote the welfare of the
   subjects left to him; but it is also said that he destroyed
   temples and idols, and burnt a Brahman alive for perverting
   Muhammadan women. In 1398-99, ten years after the death of
   Firuz Shah, Timur Shah invaded the Punjab and Hindustan [see
   TIMOUR]. The horrors of the Tartar invasion are indescribable;
   they teach nothing to the world, and the tale of atrocities
   may well be dropped into oblivion. It will suffice to say that
   Timur came and plundered, and then went away. He left officers
   to rule in his name, or to collect tribute in his name. In
   1450 they were put aside by Afghans;—turbulent Muhammadan
   fanatics whose presence must have been hateful to the Hindus.
   At last, in 1525, a descendant of Timur, named the Baber,
   invaded India, and conquered the Punjab and Hindustan."

      J. T. Wheeler,
      Short History of India,
      part 2, chapter 1.

      ALSO IN:
      M. Elphinstone,
      History of India: Hindu and Mahometan,
      book 6. chapters 2-3.

INDIA: A. D. 1398-1399.
   Timour's invasion of the Punjab.

      See TIMOUR.

Map of India, about the close  of the Sixteenth Century, and map of the growth of the Anglo-Indian Empire.
INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.
   The Saiyid and the Lodi dynasties.
   The founding of the Moghul Empire by Babar and Akbar.

   "The invasion of Taimur … dealt a fatal blow to an authority
   already crumbling. The chief authority lingered indeed for
   twelve years in the hands of the then representative, Sultan
   Mahmud. It then passed for a time into the hands of a family
   which did not claim the royal title. This family, known in
   history as the Saiyid dynasty, ruled nominally in Northern
   India for about 33 years, but the rule had no coherence, and a
   powerful Afghan of the Lodi family took the opportunity to
   endeavour to concentrate power in his own hands. The
   Muhammadan rule in India had indeed become by this time the
   rule of several disjointed chiefs over several disjointed
   provinces, subject in point of fact to no common head. Thus,
   in 1450, Delhi, with a small territory around it, was held by
   the representative of the Saiyid family. Within fourteen miles
   of the capital, Ahmad Khan ruled independently in Mewat.
   Sambhal, or the province now known as Rohilkhand, extending to
   the very walls of Delhi, was occupied by Darya Khan Lodi. …
   Lahore, Dipalpur, and Sirhind, as far south as Panipat, by
   Behlul Lodi. Multan, Jaunpur, Bengal, Malwa, and Gujarat, each
   had its separate king. Over most of these districts, and as
   far eastward as the country immediately to the north of
   Western Bihar, Behlul Lodi, known as Sultan Behlul, succeeded
   on the disappearance of the Saiyids in asserting his sole
   authority, 1450-88. His son and successor, Sultan Sikandar
   Lodi, subdued Behar, invaded Bengal, which, however, he
   subsequently agreed to yield to Allah-u-din, its sovereign,
   and not to invade it again; and overran a great portion of
   Central India. On his death, in 1518, he had concentrated
   under his own rule the territories now known as the Punjab;
   the North-western Provinces, including Jaunpur; a great part
   of Central India; and Western Bihar. But, in point of fact,
   the concentration was little more than nominal." The death of
   Sikandar Lodi was followed by a civil war which resulted in
   calling in the Tartar or Mongol conqueror, Babar, a descendant
   of Timour, who, beginning in 1494 with a small dominion (which
   he presently lost) in Ferghana, or Khokland, Central Asia, had
   made himself master of a great part of Afghanistan (1504),
   establishing his capital at Kabul. Babar had crossed the
   Indian border in 1505, but his first serious invasion was in
   1519, followed, according to some historians, by a second
   invasion the same year; the third was in 1520; the fourth
   occurred after an interval of two or three years. On his fifth
   expedition he made the conquest complete, winning a great
   battle at Panipat, 53 miles to the north-west of Delhi, on the
   24th of April, 1526. Ibrahim Lodi, son and successor of
   Sikandar Lodi, was killed in the battle, and Delhi and Agra
   were immediately occupied. "Henceforth the title of King of
   Kabul was to be subjected to the higher title of Emperor of
   Hindustan." Babar was in one sense the founder of the Mughal
   (synonymous with Mongol) dynasty—the dynasty of the Great
   Moguls, as his successors were formerly known. He died in
   1530, sovereign of northern India, and of some provinces in
   the center of the peninsula: But "he bequeathed to his son,
   Humayun, … a congeries of territories uncemented by any bond
   of union or of common interest, except that which had been
   concentrated in his life. In a word, when he died, the Mughal
   dynasty, like the Muhammadan dynasties which had preceded it,
   had shot down no roots into the soil of Hindustan."

      G. B. Malleson,
      chapters 4-5.


   Humayun succeeded Babar in India, "but had to make over Kabul
   and the Western Punjab to his brother and rival, Kamran.
   Humayun was thus left to govern the new conquest of India, and
   at the same time was deprived of the country from which his
   father had drawn his support. The descendants of the early
   Afghan invaders, long settled in India, hated the new
   Muhammadan hordes of Babar even more than they hated the
   Hindus. After ten years of fighting, Humayun was driven out of
   India by these Afghans under Sher Shah, the Governor of
   Bengal. While flying through the desert of Sind to Persia, his
   famous son Akbar was born in the petty fort of Umarkot (1542).
   Sher Shah set up as emperor, but was killed while storming the
   rock fortress of Kalinjar (1545). His son succeeded. But,
   under Sher Shah's grandson, the third of the Afghan house, the
   Provinces revolted, including Malwa, the Punjab, and Bengal.
   Humayun returned to India, and Akbar, then only in his
   thirteenth year, defeated the Afghan army after a desperate
   battle at Panipat (1556). India now passed finally from the
   Afghans to the Mughals. Sher Shah's line disappears; and
   Humayun, having recovered his Kabul dominions, reigned again
   for a few months at Delhi, but died in 1556. … Akbar the
   Great, the real founder of the Mughal Empire as it existed for
   two centuries, succeeded his father at the age of fourteen.
   … His reign lasted for almost fifty years, from 1556 to
   1605, and was therefore contemporary with that of our own
   Queen Elizabeth (1558-1603). His father, Humayun, left but a
   small kingdom in India, scarcely extending beyond the
   Districts around Agra and Delhi. … The reign of Akbar was a
   reign of pacification. … He found India split into petty
   kingdoms, and seething with discordant elements; on his death,
   in 1605, he bequeathed it an empire. The earlier invasions by
   Turks, Afghans, and Mughals, had left a powerful Muhammadan
   population in India under their own Chiefs. Akbar reduced
   these Musalman States to Provinces of the Delhi Empire. Many
   of the Hindu kings and Rajput nations had also regained their
   independence: Akbar brought them into political dependence
   upon his authority. This double task he effected partly by
   force of arms, but in part also by alliances. He enlisted the
   Rajput princes by marriage and by a sympathetic policy in the
   support of his throne. He then employed them in high posts,
   and played off his Hindu generals and Hindu ministers against
   the Mughal party in Upper India, and against the Afghan
   faction in Bengal. … His efforts to establish the Mughal
   Empire in Southern India were less successful. … Akbar
   subjugated Khandesh, and with this somewhat precarious
   annexation his conquests in the Deccan ceased. … Akbar not
   only subdued all India to the north of the Vindhya mountains,
   he also organized it into an empire. He partitioned it into
   Provinces, over each of which he placed a governor, or
   viceroy, with full civil and military control."

      W. W. Hunter,
      Brief History of the Indian People,
      chapter 10.

   "I wish briefly and fairly to state what the Emperor Akbar did
   for the improvement of the country and the people of
   Hindostan. He improved the system of land-assessment, or
   rather he improved upon the improvements instituted by Shir
   Shah. He adapted an uniform and improved system of
   land-measurement, and computed the average value of the land,
   by dividing it into three classes, according to the
   productiveness of each. This computation being made, one-third
   of the average produce was fixed as the amount of tax to be
   paid to the state. But as this was ordinarily to be paid in
   money, it was necessary to ascertain the value of the produce,
   and this was done upon an average of the nineteen preceding
   years, according to local circumstances; and if the estimate
   was conceived to be too high, the tax-payer was privileged to
   pay the assessment in kind. … The regulations for the
   collection of the revenue enforced by Akbar were well
   calculated to prevent fraud and oppression, and, on the whole,
   they worked well for the benefit of the people; but it has
   been said of them, and with truth, that 'they contained no
   principle of progressive improvement, and held out no hopes to
   the rural population, by opening paths by which it might
   spread into other occupations, or rise by individual exertions
   within its own.' The judicial regulations of Akbar were
   liberal and humane. Justice, on the whole, was fairly
   administered. All unnecessary severity—all cruel personal
   punishments, as torture and mutilation, were prohibited,
   except in peculiar cases, and capital punishments were
   considerably restricted. The police appears to have been well
   organised. … He prohibited … trials by ordeal … ; he
   suppressed the barbarous custom of condemning to slavery
   prisoners taken in war; and he authorita