The Project Gutenberg eBook of History for ready reference, Volumes 1 to 5

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, Volumes 1 to 5

Author: J. N. Larned

Release date: March 31, 2023 [eBook #70427]

Language: English

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

Credits: Don Kostuch


[Transcriber's Notes:

   "Students of history are doomed to watch it repeat."
      —Dozens of similar observations.

"History For Ready Reference" consists of 7 physical volumes, 3 kg. each. The last two volumes are supplements relating to events after 1890.

The first five volumes form a single logical volume of 3935 pages, printed as 5 physical volumes. To make searches and cross references more convenient, this file combines these five volumes.

The beginning of each volume is at these page numbers:
   Volume 1 - {1}
   Volume 2 - {769}
   Volume 3 - {1565}
   Volume 4 - {2359}
   Volume 5 - {3129}
   SUPPLEMENT - {3669}

This production does not include an html version. The individual html files integrate the maps and other images, but provide no other useful service. Furthermore, my internet browsers do not reliably handle the size of this file.

A list of all words used in this work is found at the end of this file as an aid for finding words with unusual spellings that are archaic, contain non-Latin letters, or are spelled differently by various authors. Search for:

"Word List: Start".

I use these free search tools:
   Notepad++ —
   Agent Ransack or FileLocator Pro —

The following 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. Many abbreviations are expanded to full words to simplify searches.

6. Subjects are arranged thusly:

   Subheading one.
   Subheading two.

Subject text.



      John Smith,
      External Citation Title,
      Chapter 3, page 89.


   Main titles are at the left margin, in all upper case
   (as in the original) and are preceded by an empty line.
   Some main titles include several synonyms or alternate spellings.

   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). Italics are indicated by underscores:

This is in italics.

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

7. The bibliography in Volume 1, APPENDIX F on page xxi provides
   additional details, including URLs of available internet
   versions. Search for:

   Another bibliography is provided in volume 5 at:

8. Minor formatting irregularities have corrected:
      Citations in the earlier volumes have been changed to:
         Location in work.

Ellipsis is rendered as … instead of "…".

Em dash is rendered as — instead of —.

Search Tips:

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:


   To search for titles,
      Set "Match Case";
      Begin the search text with a circumflex to indicate
      the beginning of the line:


End Transcriber's Notes.]


—————Volume 1: Start————

[Image: Spine]



History For Ready Reference, Volumes 1 to 5

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

By J. N. Larned

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

In Five Volumes

Volume I—A To Elba

Springfield, Massachusetts.
The C. A. Nichols Company, Publishers

Copyright, 1893,
By J. N. Larned.

The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. United States Of America Printed by H. O. Houghton & Company.


This work has two aims: to represent and exhibit the better Literature of History in the English language, and to give it an organized body—a system—adapted to the greatest convenience in any use, whether for reference, or for reading, for teacher, student, or casual inquirer.

The entire contents of the work, with slight exceptions readily distinguished, have been carefully culled from some thousands of books,—embracing the whole range (in the English language) of standard historical writing, both general and special: the biography, the institutional and constitutional studies, the social investigations, the archeological researches, the ecclesiastical and religious discussions, and all other important tributaries to the great and swelling main stream of historical knowledge. It has been culled as one might pick choice fruits, careful to choose the perfect and the ripe, where such are found, and careful to keep their flavor unimpaired. The flavor of the Literature of History, in its best examples, and the ripe quality of its latest and best thought, are faithfully preserved in what aims to be the garner of a fair selection from its fruits.

History as written by those, on one hand, who have depicted its scenes most vividly, and by those, on the other hand, who have searched its facts, weighed its evidences, and pondered its meanings most critically and deeply, is given in their own words. If commoner narratives are sometimes quoted, their use enters but slightly into the construction of the work. The whole matter is presented under an arrangement which imparts distinctness to its topics, while showing them in their sequence and in all their large relations, both national and international.

For every subject, a history more complete, I think, in the broad meaning of "History," is supplied by this mode than could possibly be produced on the plan of dry synopsis which is common to encyclopedic works. It holds the charm and interest of many styles of excellence in writing, and it is read in a clear light which shines directly from the pens that have made History luminous by their interpretations.

Behind the Literature of History, which can be called so in the finer sense, lies a great body of the Documents of History, which are unattractive to the casual reader, but which even he must sometimes have an urgent wish to consult. Full and carefully chosen texts of a large number of the most famous and important of such documents—charters, edicts, proclamations, petitions, covenants, legislative acts and ordinances, and the constitutions of many countries—have been accordingly introduced and are easily to be found.

The arrangement of matter in the work is primarily alphabetical, and secondarily chronological. The whole is thoroughly indexed, and the index is incorporated with the body of the text, in the same alphabetical and chronological order.

Events which touch several countries or places are treated fully but once, in the connection which shows their antecedents and consequences best, and the reader is guided to that ampler discussion by references from each caption under which it may be sought. Economies of this character bring into the compass of five volumes a body of History that would need twice the number, at least, for equal fulness on the monographic plan of encyclopedic works.

Of my own, the only original writing introduced is in a general sketch of the history of Europe, and in what I have called the "Logical Outlines" of a number of national histories, which are printed in colors to distinguish the influences that have been dominant in them. But the extensive borrowing which the work represents has not been done in an unlicensed way. I have felt warranted, by common custom, in using moderate extracts without permit. But for everything beyond these, in my selections from books now in print and on sale, whether under copyright or deprived of copyright, I have sought the consent of those, authors or publishers, or both, to whom the right of consent or denial appears to belong. In nearly all cases I have received the most generous and friendly responses to my request, and count among my valued possessions the great volume of kindly letters of permission which have come to me from authors and publishers in Great Britain and America. A more specific acknowledgment of these favors will be appended to this preface.

The authors of books have other rights beyond their rights of property, to which respect has been paid. No liberties have been taken with the text of their writings, except to abridge by omissions, which are indicated by the customary signs. Occasional interpolations are marked by enclosure in brackets. Abridgment by paraphrasing has only been resorted to when unavoidable, and is shown by the interruption of quotation marks. In the matter of different spellings, it has been more difficult to preserve for each writer his own. As a rule this is done, in names, and in the divergences between English and American orthography; but, since much of the matter quoted has been taken from American editions of English books, and since both copyists and printers have worked under the habit of American spellings, the rule may not have governed with strict consistency throughout.

J. N. L.

The Buffalo Library, Buffalo, New York, December, 1893.


In my preface I have acknowledged in general terms the courtesy and liberality of authors and publishers, by whose permission I have used much of the matter quoted in this work. I think it now proper to make the acknowledgment more specific by naming those persons and publishing houses to whom I am in debt for such kind permissions. They are as follows:


Professor Evelyn Abbott;
President Charles Kendall Adams;
Professor Herbert B. Adams;
Professor Joseph H. Allen;
Sir William Anson, Bart.;
Reverend Henry M. Baird;
Mr. Hubert Howe Bancroft;
Honorable S. G. W. Benjamin;
Mr. Walter Besant;
Professor Albert S. Bolles;
John G. Bourinot, F. S. S.;
Mr. Henry Bradley;
Reverend James Franck Bright;
Daniel G. Brinton, M. D.;
Professor William Hand Browne;
Professor George Bryce;
Right Honorable James Bryce, M. P.;
J. B. Bury, M. A.;
Mr. Lucien Carr;
General Henry B. Carrington;
Mr. John D. Champlin, Jr.;
Mr. Charles Carleton Coffin;
Honorable Thomas M. Cooley;
Professor Henry Coppée;
Reverend Sir George W. Cox, Bart.;
General Jacob Dolson Cox;
Mrs. Cox (for "'Three Decades of Federal Legislation," by the
  late Honorable Samuel S. Cox);
Professor Thomas F. Crane;
Right Reverend Mandell Creighton, Bishop of Peterborough;
Honorable J. L. M. Curry;
Honorable George Ticknor Curtis;
Professor Robert K. Douglas;
J. A. Doyle, M. A.;
Mr. Samuel Adams Drake;
Sir Mountstuart E. Grant-Duff;
Honorable Sir Charles Gaven Duffy;
Mr. Charles Henry Eden;
Mr. Henry Sutherland Edwards;
Orrin Leslie Elliott, Ph. D.;
Mr. Loyall Farragut;
The Ven. Frederic William Farrar, Archdeacon of Westminster;
Professor George Park Fisher;
Professor John Fiske;
Mr. William. E. Foster;
Professor William Warde Fowler;
Professor Edward A. Freeman;
Professor James Anthony Froude;
Mr. James Gairdner;
Arthur Gilman, M. A.;
Mr. Parke Godwin;
Mrs. M. E. Gordon (for the "History of the Campaigns of the
Army of Virginia under General Pope," by the late
General George H. Gordon);
Reverend Sabine Baring-Gould;
Mr. Ulysses S. Grant, Jr. (for the "Personal Memoirs" of the
late General Grant);
Mrs. John Richard Green (for her own writings and for those
of the late John Richard Green);
William Greswell, M. B.;
Major Arthur Griffiths;
Frederic Harrison, M. A.;
Professor Albert Bushnell Hart;
Mr. William Heaton;
Colonel Thomas Wentworth Higginson;
Professor B. A. Hinsdale;
Miss Margaret L. Hooper (for the writings of the late
Mr. George Hooper);
Reverend Robert F. Horton;
Professor James K. Hosmer;
Colonel Henry M. Hozier;
Reverend William Hunt;
Sir William Wilson Hunter;
Professor Edmund James;
Mr. Rossiter Johnson;
Mr. John Foster Kirk;
The Very Reverend George William Kitchin, Dean of Winchester;
Colonel Thomas W. Knox;
Mr. J. S. Landon;
Honorable Emily Lawless;
William E. H. Lecky, LL. D., D. C. L.;
Mrs. Margaret Levi (for the "History of British Commerce,"
by the late Dr. Leone Levi);
Professor Charlton T. Lewis;
The Very Reverend Henry George Liddell, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford;
Honorable Henry Cabot Lodge;
Richard Lodge, M. A.;
Reverend W. J. Loftie;
Mrs. Mary S. Long (for the "Life of General Robert E. Lee," by
the late General A. L. Long);
Mrs. Helen Lossing (for the writings of the late Benson J. Lossing);
Charles Lowe, M. A.;
Charles P. Lucas, B. A.;
Justin McCarthy, M. P.;
Professor John Bach McMaster;
Honorable Edward McPherson,
Professor John P. Mahaffy;
Capt. Alfred T. Mahan, U. S. N.;
Colonel George B. Malleson;
Clements R. Markham, C. B., F. R. S.;
Professor David Masson;
The Very Reverend Charles Merivale, Dean of Ely;
Professor John Henry Middleton;
Mr. J. G. Cotton Minchin;
William R. Morfill, M. A.;
Right Honorable John Morley, M. P.;
Mr. John T. Morse, Jr.;
Sir William Muir;
Mr. Harold Murdock;
Reverend Arthur Howard Noll;
Miss Kate Norgate;
C. W. C. Oman, M. A.;
Mr. John C. Palfrey (for "History of New England," by the late
John Gorham Palfrey);
Francis Parkman, LL. D.;
Edward James Payne, M. A.;
Charles Henry Pearson, M. A.;
Mr. James Breck Perkins;
Mrs. Mary E. Phelan (for the "History of Tennessee," by the
late James Phelan);
Colonel George E. Pond;
Reginald L. Poole, Ph. D.;
Mr. Stanley Lane-Poole;
William F. Poole, LL. D.;
Major John W. Powell;
Mr. John W. Probyn;
Professor John Clark Ridpath;
Honorable Ellis H. Roberts;
Honorable Theodore Roosevelt;
Mr. John Codman Ropes;
J. H. Rose, M. A.;
Professor Josiah Royce;
Reverend Philip Schaff;
James Schouler, LL. D.;
Honorable Carl Schurz;
Mr. Eben Greenough Scott;
Professor J. R. Seeley;
Professor Nathaniel Southgate Shaler;
Mr. Edward Morse Shepard;
Colonel M. V. Sheridan (for the "Personal Memoirs" of the
late General Sheridan);
Mr. P. T. Sherman (for the "Memoirs" of the late General Sherman);
Samuel Smiles, LL. D.;
Professor Goldwin Smith;
Professor James Russell Soley;
Mr. Edward Stanwood;
Leslie Stephen, M. A.;
H. Morse Stephens, M. A.;
Mr. Simon Sterne;
Charles J. Stillé, LL. D.;
Sir John Strachey;
Right Reverend William Stubbs, Bishop of Peterborough;
Professor William Graham Sumner;
Professor Frank William Taussig;
Mr. William Roscoe Thayer;
Professor Robert H. Thurston;
Mr. Telemachus T. Timayenis;
Henry D. Traill, D. C. L.;
General R. de Trobriand;
Mr. Bayard Tuckerman;
Samuel Epes Turner, Ph. D.;
Professor Herbert Tuttle;
Professor Arminius Vambéry;
Mr. Henri Van Laun;
General Francis A. Walker;
Sir D. Mackenzie Wallace;
Spencer Walpole, LL. D.;
Alexander Stewart Webb, LL. D.;
Mr. J. Talboys Wheeler;
Mr. Arthur Silva White;
Sir Monier Monier-Williams;
Justin Winsor, LL. D.;
Reverend Frederick C. Woodhouse;
John Yeats, LL: D.;
Miss Charlotte M. Yonge.



W. H. Allen & Company;
Asher & Company;
George Bell & Sons;
Richard Bentley & Son;
Bickers & Sons;
A. & C. Black;
Cassell & Company;
Chapman & Hall;
Chatto & Windus:
Thomas De La Rue & Company;
H. Grevel & Company;
Griffith, Farran & Company;
William Heinemann:
Hodder & Stoughton;
Macmillan & Company;
Methuen & Company;
John Murray;
John C. Nimmo;
Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Company;
George Philip & Son;
The Religious Tract Society;
George Routledge & Sons;
Seeley & Company;
Smith, Elder & Company;
Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge;
Edward Stanford;
Stevens & Haynes;
Henry Stevens & Son;
Elliot Stock;
Swan Sonnenschein & Company;
The Times;
T. Fisher Unwin;
Ward, Lock, Bowden & Company;
Frederick Warne & Company;
Williams & Norgate.

New York:

D. Appleton & Company;
Armstrong & Company;
A. S. Barnes & Company;
The Century Company;
T. Y. Crowell & Company;
Derby & Miller:
Dick & Fitzgerald;
Dodd, Mead & Company;
Harper & Brothers;
Henry Holt & Company;
Townsend MacCoun;
G. P. Putnam's Sons;
Anson D. F. Randolph & Company;
D. J. Sadler & Company;
Charles Scribner's Sons;
Charles L. Webster & Company;


William Blackwood & Sons;
W. & R. Chambers;
David Douglas;
Thomas Nelson & Sons;
W. P. Nimmo;
Hay & Mitchell;
The Scottish Reformation Society.


L. H. Everts & Company;
J. B. Lippincott Company;
Oldach & Company;
Porter & Coates.


Estes & Lauriat;
Houghton, Mifflin & Company;
Little, Brown & Company;
D. Lothrop Company;
Roberts Brothers.


James Duffy & Company;
Hodges, Figgis & Company;
J. J. Lalor.


Callaghan & Company;
A. C. McClurg & Company;


Robert Clarke & Company;
Jones Brothers Publishing Company;

Hartford, Connecticut:

O. D. Case & Company;
S. S. Scranton & Company;


Joel Munsell's Sons.

Cambridge, England:

The University Press.

Norwich, Connecticut:

The Henry Bill Publishing Company;


The Clarendon Press.

Providence, R. I.

J. A. & R. A. Reid.

A list of books quoted from will be given in the final volume. I am greatly indebted to the remarkable kindness of a number of eminent historical scholars, who have critically examined the proof sheets of important articles and improved them by their suggestions. My debt to Miss Ellen M. Chandler, for assistance given me in many ways, is more than I can describe.

In my publishing arrangements I have been most fortunate, and I owe the good fortune very largely to a number of friends, among whom it is just that I should name Mr. Henry A. Richmond, Mr. George E. Matthews, and Mr. John G. Milburn. There is no feature of these arrangements so satisfactory to me as that which places the publication of my book in the hands of the Company of which Mr. Charles A. Nichols, of Springfield, Massachusetts, is the head.

I think myself fortunate, too, in the association of my work with that of Mr. Alan C. Reiley, from whose original studies and drawings the greater part of the historical maps in these volumes have been produced.

J. N. Larned.

List Of Maps And Plans.

'Ethnographic map of Modern Europe,'
  Preceding the title-page.
Map of American Discovery and Settlement,
   To follow page 46
Plan of Athens, and Harbors of Athens,
   On page 145 Plan of Athenian house,
On page 162 Four development maps of Austria,
   To follow page 196
Ethnographic map of Austria-Hungary,
   On page 197
Four development maps of Asia Minor and the Balkan Peninsula,
   To follow page 242
Map of the Balkan and Danubian States, showing changes during
the present century,
   On page 244
Map of Burgundy under Charles the Bold,
   To follow page 332
Development map showing the diffusion of Christianity,
   To follow page 432

Logical Outlines, In Colors.

Athenian and Greek history, To follow page 144.

Austrian history, To follow page 198.

Chronological Tables.

The Seventeenth Century:
   First half and second half, To follow page 208.
   To the Peloponnesian War, and Fourth and Third Centuries, B. C.,
   To follow page 166.

Appendices To Volume I.

   A. Notes to Ethnographic map;
      by Mr. A. C. Reiley.

   B. Notes to four maps of Asia Minor and the Balkan Peninsula;
      by Mr. A. C. Reiley.

   C. Notes to map of the Balkan Peninsula in the present century;
      by Mr. A. C. Reiley.

   D. Notes to map showing the diffusion of Christianity;
      Mr. A. C. Reiley.

   E. Notes on the American Aborigines;
      by Major J. W. Powell and
      Mr. J. Owen Dorsey, of the United States Bureau of Ethnology.

   F. Bibliography of America
      (Discovery, Exploration, Settlement, Archæology,
      and Ethnology), and of Austria.


History For Ready Reference.

A. C. Ante Christum;
   used sometimes instead of the more familiar abbreviation,
   B. C.—Before Christ.

A. D. Anno Domini;
   The Year of Our Lord.


A. E. I. O. U.

"The famous device of Austria, A. E. I. O. U., was first used by Frederic III. [1440-1493], who adopted it on his plate, books, and buildings. These initials stand for 'Austriae Est Imperare Orbi Universo'; or, in German, 'Alles Erdreich Ist Osterreich Unterthan': a bold assumption for a man who was not safe in an inch of his dominions."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, volume 2, page 89, foot-note.

A. H. Anno Hejiræ.


A. M.

"Anno Mundi;" the Year of the World, or the year from the beginning of the world, according to the formerly accepted chronological reckoning of Archbishop Usher and others.

A. U. C., OR U. C.

"Ab urbe condita," from the founding of the city; or "Anno urbis Conditæ," the year from the founding of the city; the Year of Rome.

See ROME: B. C. 753.



AARAU, Peace of (1712).

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789.

ABÆ, Oracle of.


ABBAS I. (called The Great), Shah of Persia; A. D. 1582-1627

ABBAS II., A. D. 1641-1666.
ABBAS III., A. D. 1732-1736.

ABBASSIDES, The rise, decline and fall of the.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST, &c.: A. D. 715-750; 763; and 815-945;
      also BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.




See INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.

ABDALMELIK, Caliph, A. D. 684-705.

   The War of the French in Algiers with.

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

   Alexander, Prince of Bulgaria.

See BULGARIA: A. D. 1878-1886.

Amadeo of Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.

Charles IV. and Ferdinand VII. of Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808.

Charles V. Emperor.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1552-1561, and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555.

Charles X. King of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815-1830.

Charles Albert, King of Sardinia.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

Christina, Regent of Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.

Christina, Queen of Sweden.


Diocletian, Emperor.

See ROME: A. D. 284-305.

Ferdinand, Emperor of Austria.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

Louis Bonaparte, King of Holland.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.

Louis Philippe.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.

Milan, King of Servia.

See SERVIA: A. D. 1882-1889.

Pedro I., Emperor of Brazil, and King of Portugal.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889, and BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865.

Ptolemy I. of Egypt.

See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 297-280.

Victor Emanuel I.

See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.

William I., King of Holland.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.

ABDUL-AZIZ, Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1861-1876.

ABDUL-HAMID, Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1774-1789.


ABDUL-MEDJID, Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1839-1861.

ABEL, King of Denmark, A. D. 1250-1252.


See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273, and 1476-1492.

ABENSBURG, Battle of.





See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852, and 1855.




See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.



ABO, Treaty of (1743).

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1740-1762.


See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832; and 1840-1847.



ABOUKIR, Naval Battle of (or Battle of the Nile).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).

ABOUKIR, Land-battle of (1799).

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

ABRAHAM, The Plains of.

That part of the high plateau of Quebec on which the memorable victory of Wolfe was won, September 13, 1759. The plain was so called "from Abraham Martin, a pilot known as Maitre Abraham, who had owned a piece of land here in the early times of the colony."

F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, volume 2, page 289.

   For an account of the battle which gave distinction to the
   Plains of Abraham,



In Ireland, "the owners of about one-half the land do not live on or near their estates, while the owners of about one fourth do not live in the country. … Absenteeism is an old evil, and in very early times received attention from the government. … Some of the disadvantages to the community arising from the absence of the more wealthy and intelligent classes are apparent to everyone. Unless the landlord is utterly poverty-stricken or very unenterprising, 'there is a great deal more going on' when he is in the country. … I am convinced that absenteeism is a great disadvantage to the country and the people. … It is too much to attribute to it all the evils that have been set down to its charge. It is, however, an important consideration that the people regard it as a grievance; and think the twenty-five or thirty millions of dollars paid every year to these landlords, who are rarely or never in Ireland, is a tax grievous to be borne."

D. B. King, The Irish Question, pages 5-11.




ABU-BEKR, Caliph, A. D. 632-634.

ABU KLEA, Battle of (1885).

See EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.

ABUL ABBAS, Caliph, A. D. 750-754.


"Since the days of Frumentius [who introduced Christianity into Abyssinia in the 4th century] every orthodox Primate of Abyssinia has been consecrated by the Coptic Patriarch of the church of Alexandria, and has borne the title of Abuna"—or Abuna Salama, "Father of Peace."

      H. M. Hozier,
      The British Expedition to Abyssinia,
      page 4.


"The numerous circles of stone or of earth in Britain and Ireland, varying in diameter from 30 or 40 feet up to 1,200, are to be viewed as temples standing in the closest possible relation to the burial-places of the dead. The most imposing group of remains of this kind in this country [England] is that of Avebury [Abury], near Devizes, in Wiltshire, referred by Sir John Lubbock to a late stage in the Neolithic or to the beginning of the bronze period. It consists of a large circle of unworked upright stones 1,200 feet in diameter, surrounded by a fosse, which in turn is also surrounded by a rampart of earth. Inside are the remains of two concentric circles of stone, and from the two entrances in the rampart proceeded long avenues flanked by stones, one leading to Beckhampton, and the other to West Kennett, where it formerly ended in another double circle. Between them rises Silbury Hill, the largest artificial mound in Great Britain, no less than 130 feet in height. This group of remains was at one time second to none, 'but unfortunately for us [says Sir John Lubbock] the pretty little village of Avebury [Abury], like some beautiful parasite, has grown up at the expense and in the midst of the ancient temple, and out of 650 great stones, not above twenty are still standing. In spite of this it is still to be classed among the finest ruins in Europe. The famous temple of Stonehenge on Salisbury Plain is probably of a later date than Avebury, since not only are some of the stones used in its construction worked, but the surrounding barrows are more elaborate than those in the neighbourhood of the latter. It consisted of a circle 100 feet in diameter, of large upright blocks of sarsen stone, 12 feet 7 inches high, bearing imposts dovetailed into each other, so as to form a continuous architrave. Nine feet within this was a circle of small foreign stones … and within this five great trilithons of sarsen stone, forming a horse-shoe; then a horse-shoe of foreign stones, eight feet high, and in the centre a slab of micaceous sandstone called the altar-stone. … At a distance of 100 feet from the outer line a small ramp, with a ditch outside, formed the outer circle, 300 feet in diameter, which cuts a low barrow and includes another, and therefore is evidently of later date than some of the barrows of the district."

W. B. Dawkins; Early Man in Britain, chapter 10.

"Stonehenge … may, I think, be regarded as a monument of the Bronze Age, though apparently it was not all erected at one time, the inner circle of small, unwrought, blue stones being probably older than the rest; as regards Abury, since the stones are all in their natural condition, while those of Stonehenge are roughly hewn, it seems reasonable to conclude that Abury is the older of the two, and belongs either to the close of the Stone Age, or to the commencement of that of Bronze. Both Abury and Stonehenge were, I believe, used as temples. Many of the stone circles, however, have been proved to be burial places. In fact, a complete burial place may be described as a dolmen, covered by a tumulus, and surrounded by a stone circle. Often, however, we have only the tumulus, sometimes only the dolmen, and sometimes again only the stone circle. The celebrated monument of Carnac, in Brittany, consists of eleven rows of unhewn stones, which differ greatly both in size and height, the largest being 22 feet above ground, while some are quite small. It appears that the avenues originally extended for several miles, but at present they are very imperfect, the stones having been cleared away in places for agricultural improvements. At present, therefore, there are several detached portions, which, however, have the same general direction, and appear to have been connected together. … Most of the great tumuli in Brittany probably belong to the Stone Age, and I am therefore disposed to regard Carnac as having been erected during the same period."

Sir J. Lubbock, Prehistoric Times, chapter 5.


An ancient city on the Asiatic side of the Hellespont, mentioned in the Iliad as one of the towns that were in alliance with the Trojans. Originally Thracian, as is supposed, it became a colony of Miletus, and passed at different times under Persian, Athenian, Lacedæmonian and Macedonian rule. Its site was at the narrowest point of the Hellespont—the scene of the ancient romantic story of Hero and Leander—nearly opposite to the town of Sestus. It was in the near neighborhood of Abydos that Xerxes built his bridge of boats; at Abydos, Alcibiades and the Athenians won an important victory over the Peloponnesians.

See GREECE: B. C. 480, and 411-407.

ABYDOS, Tablet of.

One of the most valuable records of Egyptian history, found in the ruins of Abydos and now preserved in the British Museum. It gives a list of kings whom Ramses II. selected from among his ancestors to pay homage to. The tablet was much mutilated when found, but another copy more perfect has been unearthed by M. Mariette, which supplies nearly all the names lacking on the first.

F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History of the East, volume 1, book 3.

ABYSSINIA: Embraced in ancient Ethiopia.


ABYSSINIA: Fourth Century.
   Conversion to Christianity.

"Whatever may have been the effect produced in his native country by the conversion of Queen Candace's treasurer, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles [chapter VIII.], it would appear to have been transitory; and the Ethiopian or Abyssinian church owes its origin to an expedition made early in the fourth century by Meropius, a philosopher of Tyre, for the purpose of scientific inquiry. On his voyage homewards, he and his companions were attacked at a place where they had landed in search of water, and all were massacred except two youths, Ædesius and Frumentius, the relatives and pupils of Meropius. These were carried to the king of the country, who advanced Ædesius to be his cup-bearer, and Frumentius to be his secretary and treasurer. On the death of the king, who left a boy as his heir, the two strangers, at the request of the widowed queen, acted as regents of the kingdom until the prince came of age. Ædesius then returned to Tyre, where he became a presbyter. Frumentius, who, with the help of such Christian traders as visited the country, had already introduced the Christian doctrine and worship into Abyssinia, repaired to Alexandria, related his story to Athanasius, and … Athanasius … consecrated him to the bishoprick of Axum [the capital of the Abyssinain kingdom]. The church thus founded continues to this day subject to the see of Alexandria."

J. C. Robertson, History of the Christian Church, book 2, chapter 6.


ABYSSINIA: 6th to 16th Centuries.
   Wars in Arabia.
   Struggle with the Mahometans.
   Isolation from the Christian world.

"The fate of the Christian church among the Homerites in Arabia Felix afforded an opportunity for the Abyssinians, under the reigns of the Emperors Justin and Justinian, to show their zeal in behalf of the cause of the Christians. The prince of that Arabian population, Dunaan, or Dsunovas, was a zealous adherent of Judaism; and, under pretext of avenging the oppressions which his fellow-believers were obliged to suffer in the Roman empire, he caused the Christian merchants who came from that quarter and visited Arabia for the purposes of trade, or passed through the country to Abyssinia, to be murdered. Elesbaan, the Christian king of Abyssinia, made this a cause for declaring war on the Arabian prince. He conquered Dsunovas, deprived him of the government, and set up a Christian, by the name of Abraham, as king in his stead. But at the death of the latter, which happened soon after, Dsunovas again made himself master of the throne; and it was a natural consequence of what he had suffered, that he now became a fiercer and more cruel persecutor than he was before. … Upon this, Elesbaan interfered once more, under the reign of the emperor Justinian, who stimulated him to the undertaking. He made a second expedition to Arabia Felix, and was again victorious. Dsunovas lost his life in the war; the Abyssinian prince put an end to the ancient, independent empire of the Homerites, and established a new government favourable to the Christians."

A. Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church, second period, section 1.

"In the year 592, as nearly as can be calculated from the dates given by the native writers, the Persians, whose power seems to have kept pace with the decline of the Roman empire, sent a great force against the Abyssinians, possessed themselves once more of Arabia, acquired a naval superiority in the gulf, and secured the principal ports on either side of it."

"It is uncertain how long these conquerors retained their acquisition; but, in all probability their ascendancy gave way to the rising greatness of the Mahometan power; which soon afterwards overwhelmed all the nations contiguous to Arabia, spread to the remotest parts of the East, and even penetrated the African deserts from Egypt to the Congo. Meanwhile Abyssinia, though within two hundred miles of the walls of Mecca, remained unconquered and true to the Christian faith; presenting a mortifying and galling object to the more zealous followers of the Prophet. On this account, implacable and incessant wars ravaged her territories. … She lost her commerce, saw her consequence annihilated, her capital threatened, and the richest of her provinces laid waste. … There is reason to apprehend that she must shortly have sunk under the pressure of repeated invasions, had not the Portuguese arrived [in the 16th century] at a seasonable moment to aid her endeavours against the Moslem chiefs."

M. Russell, Nubia and Abyssinia, chapter 3.

"When Nubia, which intervenes between Egypt and Abyssinia, ceased to be a Christian country, owing to the destruction of its church by the Mahometans, the Abyssinian church was cut off from communication with the rest of Christendom. … They [the Abyssinians] remain an almost unique specimen of a semi-barbarous Christian people. Their worship is strangely mixed with Jewish customs."

H. F. Tozer, The Church and the Eastern Empire, chapter 5.

ABYSSINIA: Fifteenth-Nineteenth Centuries.
   European Attempts at Intercourse.
   Intrusion of the Gallas.
   Intestine conflicts.

   "About the middle of the 15th century, Abyssinia came in
   contact with Western Europe. An Abyssinian convent was endowed
   at Rome, and legates were sent from the Abyssinian convent at
   Jerusalem to the council of Florence. These adhered to the
   Greek schism. But from that time the Church of Rome made an
   impress upon Ethiopia. … Prince Henry of Portugal … next
   opened up communication with Europe. He hoped to open up a
   route from the West to the East coast of Africa [see PORTUGAL:
   A. D. 1415-1460], by which the East Indies might be reached
   without touching Mahometan territory. During his efforts to
   discover such a passage to India, and to destroy the revenues
   derived by the Moors from the spice trade, he sent an
   ambassador named Covillan to the Court of Shoa. Covillan was
   not suffered to return by Alexander, the then Negoos [or
   Negus, or Nagash—the title of the Abyssinian sovereign]. He
   married nobly, and acquired rich possessions in the country.
   He kept up correspondence with Portugal, and urged Prince
   Henry to diligently continue his efforts to discover the
   Southern passage to the East. In 1498 the Portuguese effected
   the circuit of Africa. The Turks shortly afterwards extended
   their conquests towards India, where they were baulked by the
   Portuguese, but they established a post and a toll at Zeyla,
   on the African coast. From here they hampered and threatened
   to destroy the trade of Abyssinia," and soon, in alliance with
   the Mahometan tribes of the coast, invaded the country. "They
   were defeated by the Negoos David, and at the same time the
   Turkish town of Zeyla was stormed and burned by a Portuguese
   fleet." Considerable intimacy of friendly relations was
   maintained for some time between the against the Turks.
   Abyssinians and the Portuguese, who assisted in defending them
   "In the middle of the 16th century … a
   migration of Gallas came from the South and swept up to and
   over the confines of Abyssinia. Men of lighter complexion and
   fairer skin than most Africans, they were Pagan in religion
   and savages in customs. Notwithstanding frequent efforts to
   dislodge them, they have firmly established themselves. A
   large colony has planted itself on the banks of the Upper
   Takkazie, the Jidda and the Bashilo. Since their establishment
   here they have for the most part embraced the creed of
   Mahomet. The province of Shoa is but an outlier of Christian
   Abyssinia, separated completely from co-religionist districts
   by these Galla bands. About the same time the Turks took a
   firm hold of Massowah and of the lowland by the coast, which
   had hitherto been ruled by the Abyssinian Bahar Nagash.
   Islamism and heathenism surrounded Abyssinia, where the lamp
   of Christianity faintly glimmered amidst dark superstition in
   the deep recesses of rugged valleys." In 1558 a Jesuit mission
   arrived in the country and established itself at Fremona. "For
   nearly a century Fremona existed, and its superiors were the
   trusted advisors of the Ethiopian throne. … But the same
   fate which fell upon the company of Jesus in more civilized
   lands, pursued it in the wilds of Africa. The Jesuit
   missionaries were universally popular with the Negoos, but the
   prejudice of the people refused to recognise the benefits
   which flowed from Fremona." Persecution befell the fathers,
   and two of them won the crown of martyrdom. The Negoos,
   Facilidas, "sent for a Coptic Abuna [ecclesiastical primate]
   from Alexandria, and concluded a treaty with the Turkish
   governors of Massowah and Souakin to prevent the passage of
   Europeans into his dominions. Some Capuchin preachers, who
   attempted to evade this treaty and enter Abyssinia, met with
   cruel deaths. Facilidas thus completed the work of the Turks
   and the Gallas, and shut Abyssinia out from European influence
   and civilization. … After the expulsion of the Jesuits,
   Abyssinia was torn by internal feuds and constantly harassed
   by the encroachments of and wars with the Gallas. Anarchy and
   confusion ruled supreme. Towns and villages were burnt down,
   and the inhabitants sold into slavery. … Towards the middle
   of the 18th century the Gallas appear to have increased
   considerably in power. In the intestine quarrels of Abyssinia
   their alliance was courted by each side, and in their country
   political refugees obtained a secure asylum." During the early
   years of the present century, the campaigns in Egypt attracted
   English attention to the Red Sea. "In 1804 Lord Valentia, the
   Viceroy of India, sent his Secretary, Mr. Salt, into
   Abyssinia;" but Mr. Salt was unable to penetrate beyond Tigre.
   In 1810 he attempted a second mission and again failed. It was
   not until 1848 that English attempts to open diplomatic and
   commercial relations with Abyssinia became successful. Mr.
   Plowden was appointed consular agent, and negotiated a treaty
   of commerce with Ras Ali, the ruling Galla chief."

      H. M. Hozier,
      The British Expedition to Abyssinia,

ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.
   Advent of King Theodore.
   His English captives and the Expedition which released them.

"Consul Plowden had been residing six years at Massowah when he heard that the Prince to whom he had been accredited, Ras Ali, had been defeated and dethroned by an adventurer, whose name, a few years before, had been unknown outside the boundaries of his native province. This was Lij Kâsa, better known by his adopted name of Theodore. He was born of an old family, in the mountainous region of Kwara, where the land begins to slope downwards towards the Blue Nile, and educated in a convent, where he learned to read, and acquired a considerable knowledge of the Scriptures. Kâsa's convent life was suddenly put an end to, when one of those marauding Galla bands, whose ravages are the curse of Abyssinia, attacked and plundered the monastery. From that time he himself took to the life of a freebooter. … Adventurers flocked to his standard; his power continually increased; and in 1854 he defeated Ras Ali in a pitched battle, and made himself master of central Abyssinia." In 1855 he overthrew the ruler of Tigre. "He now resolved to assume a title commensurate with the wide extent of his dominion. In the church of Derezgye he had himself crowned by the Abuna as King of the Kings of Ethiopia, taking the name of Theodore, because an ancient tradition declared that a great monarch would some day arise in Abyssinia." Mr. Plowden now visited the new monarch, was impressed with admiration of his talents and character, and became his counsellor and friend. But in 1860 the English consul lost his life, while on a journey, and Theodore, embittered by several misfortunes, began to give rein to a savage temper. "The British Government, on hearing of the death of Plowden, immediately replaced him at Massowah by the appointment of Captain Cameron." The new Consul was well received, and was entrusted by the Abyssinian King with a letter addressed to the Queen of England, soliciting her friendship. The letter, duly despatched to its destination, was pigeon-holed in the Foreign Office at London, and no reply to it was ever made. Insulted and enraged by this treatment, and by other evidences of the indifference of the British Government to his overtures, King Theodore, in January, 1864, seized and imprisoned Consul Cameron with all his suite. About the same time he was still further offended by certain passages in a book on Abyssinia that had been published by a missionary named Stern. Stern and a fellow missionary, Rosenthal with the latter's wife, were lodged in prison, and subjected to flogging and torture. The first step taken by the British Government, when news of Consul Cameron's imprisonment reached England, was to send out a regular mission to Abyssinia, bearing a letter signed by the Queen, demanding the release of the captives. The mission, headed by a Syrian named Rassam, made its way to the King's presence in January, 1866. Theodore seemed to be placated by the Queen's epistle and promised freedom to his prisoners. But soon his moody mind became filled with suspicions as to the genuineness of Rassam's credentials from the Queen, and as to the designs and intentions of all the foreigners who were in his power. He was drinking heavily at the time, and the result of his "drunken cogitations was a determination to detain the mission—at any rate until by their means he should have obtained a supply of skilled artisans and machinery from England." {5} Mr. Rassam and his companions were accordingly put into confinement, as Captain Cameron had been. But they were allowed to send a messenger to England, making their situation known, and conveying the demand of King Theodore that a man be sent to him "who can make cannons and muskets." The demand was actually complied with. Six skilled artisans and a civil engineer were sent out, together with a quantity of machinery and other presents, in the hope that they would procure the release of the unfortunate captives at Magdala. Almost a year was wasted in these futile proceedings, and it was not until September, 1867, that an expedition consisting of 4,000 British and 8,000 native troops, under General Sir Robert Napier, was sent from India to bring the insensate barbarian to terms. It landed in Annesley Bay, and, overcoming enormous difficulties with regard to water, food-supplies and transportation, was ready, about the middle of January, 1868, to start upon its march to the fortress of Magdala, where Theodore's prisoners were confined. The distance was 400 miles, and several high ranges of mountains had to be passed to reach the interior table-land. The invading army met with no resistance until it reached the Valley of the Beshilo, when it was attacked (April 10) on the plain of Aroge or Arogi, by the whole force which Theodore was able to muster, numbering a few thousands, only, of poorly armed men. The battle was simply a rapid slaughtering of the barbaric assailants, and when they fled, leaving 700 or 800 dead and 1,500 wounded on the field, the Abyssinian King had no power of resistance left. He offered at once to make peace, surrendering all the captives in his hands; but Sir Robert Napier required an unconditional submission, with a view to displacing him from the throne, in accordance with the wish and expectation which he had found to be general in the country. Theodore refused these terms, and when (April 13) Magdala was bombarded and stormed by the British troops—slight resistance being made—he shot himself at the moment of their entrance to the place. The sovereignty he had successfully concentrated in himself for a time was again divided. Between April and June the English army was entirely withdrawn, and "Abyssinia was sealed up again from intercourse with the outer world."

Cassell's Illustrated History of England, volume 9, chapter 28.

"The task of permanently uniting Abyssinia, in which Theodore failed, proved equally impracticable to John, who came to the front, in the first instance, as an ally of the British, and afterwards succeeded to the sovereignty. By his fall (10th March, 1889) in the unhappy war against the Dervishes or Moslem zealots of the Soudan, the path was cleared for Menilek of Shoa, who enjoyed the support of Italy. The establishment of the Italians on the Red Sea littoral … promises a new era for Abyssinia."

T. Nöldeke, Sketches from Eastern History, chapter 9.

      ALSO IN
      H. A. Stern,
      The Captive Missionary.

      H. M. Stanley,
      Coomassie and Magdala,
      part 2.

ACABA, the Pledges of.


ACADEMY, The Athenian.

"The Academia, a public garden in the neighbourhood of Athens, was the favourite resort of Plato, and gave its name to the school which he founded. This garden was planted with lofty plane-trees, and adorned with temples and statues; a gentle stream rolled through it."

G. H. Lewes, Biog. History of Philosophy, 6th Epoch.

The masters of the great schools of philosophy at Athens "chose for their lectures and discussions the public buildings which were called gymnasia, of which there were several in different quarters of the city. They could only use them by the sufferance of the State, which had built them chiefly for bodily exercises and athletic feats. … Before long several of the schools drew themselves apart in special buildings, and even took their most familiar names, such as the Lyceum and the Academy, from the gymnasia in which they made themselves at home. Gradually we find the traces of some material provisions, which helped to define and to perpetuate the different sects. Plato had a little garden, close by the sacred Eleusinian Way, in the shady groves of the Academy, which he bought, says Plutarch, for some 3,000 drachmæ. There lived also his successors, Xenocrates and Polemon. … Aristotle, as we know, in later life had taught in the Lyceum, in the rich grounds near the Ilissus, and there he probably possessed the house and garden which after his death came into the hands of his successor, Theophrastus."

W. W. Capes, University life in Ancient Athens, pages. 31-33.

For a description of the Academy, the Lyceum, and other gymnasia of Athens.


Concerning the suppression of the Academy,

See ATHENS: A. D. 529.



ACADIANS, The, and the British Government.
   Their expulsion.

See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730; 1749-1755, and 1755.








"The concluding sign of being dubbed or adopted into the order of knighthood was a slight blow given by the lord to the cavalier, and called the accolade, from the part of the body, the neck, whereon it was struck. … Many writers have imagined that the accolade was the last blow which the soldier might receive with impunity: but this interpretation is not correct, for the squire was as jealous of his honour as the knight. The origin of the accolade it is impossible to trace, but it was clearly considered symbolical of the religious and moral duties of knighthood, and was the only ceremony used when knights were made in places (the field of battle, for instance), where time and circumstances did not allow of many ceremonies."

C. Mills, History of Chivalry, page 1, 53, and foot-note.

ACHÆAN CITIES, League of the.

This, which is not to be confounded with the "Achaian League" of Peloponnesus, was an early League of the Greek settlements in southern Italy, or Magna Græca. It was "composed of the towns of Siris, Pandosia, Metabus or Metapontum, Sybaris with its offsets Posidonia and Laus, Croton, Caulonia, Temesa, Terina and Pyxus. … The language of Polybius regarding the Achæan symmachy in the Peloponnesus may be applied also to these Italian Achæans; 'not only did they live in federal and friendly communion, but they made use of the same laws, and the same weights, measures and coins, as well as of the same magistrates, councillors and judges.'"

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 10.



See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.


The family or dynastic name (in its Greek form) of the kings of the Persian Empire founded by Cyrus, derived from an ancestor, Achæmenes, who was probably a chief of the Persian tribe of the Pasargadæ. "In the inscription of Behistun, King Darius says: 'From old time we were kings; eight of my family have been kings, I am the ninth; from very ancient times we have been kings.' He enumerates his ancestors: 'My father was Vistaçpa, the father of Vistaçpa was Arsama; the father of Arsama was Ariyaramna, the father of Ariyaramna was Khaispis, the father of Khaispis was Hakhamanis; hence we are called Hakhamanisiya (Achæmenids).' In these words Darius gives the tree of his own family up to Khaispis; this was the younger branch of the Achæmenids. Teispes, the son of Achaemenes, had two sons; the elder was Cambyses (Kambujiya) the younger Ariamnes; the son of Cambyses was Cyrus (Kurus), the son of Cyrus was Cambyses II. Hence Darius could indeed maintain that eight princes of his family had preceded him; but it was not correct to maintain that they had been kings before him and that he was the ninth king."

      M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      volume 5, book 8, chapter 3.

      ALSO IN
      G. Rawlinson, Family of the Achæmenidæ, appendix to
      book 7 of Herodotus



"Crossing the river Larissus, and pursuing the northern coast of Peloponnesus south of the Corinthian Gulf, the traveller would pass into Achaia—a name which designated the narrow strip of level land, and the projecting spurs and declivities between that gulf and the northernmost mountains of the peninsula. … Achaean cities—twelve in number at least, if not more—divided this long strip of land amongst them, from the mouth of the Larissus and the northwestern Cape Araxus on one side, to the western boundary of the Sikyon territory on the other. According to the accounts of the ancient legends and the belief of Herodotus, this territory had been once occupied by Ionian inhabitants, whom the Achaeans had expelled."

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

   After the Roman conquest and the suppression of the Achaian
   League, the name Achaia was given to the Roman province then
   organized, which embraced all Greece south of Macedonia and

See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

"In the Homeric poems, where … the 'Hellenes' only appear in one district of Southern Thessaly, the name Achæans is employed by preference as a general appelation for the whole race. But the Achæans we may term, without hesitation, a Pelasgian people, in so far, that is, as we use this name merely as the opposite of the term 'Hellenes,' which prevailed at a later time, although it is true that the Hellenes themselves were nothing more than a particular branch of the Pelasgian stock. … [The name of the] Achæans, after it had dropped its earlier and more universal application, was preserved as the special name of a population dwelling in the north of the Peloponnese and the south of Thessaly."

Georg Friedrich Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State, Introduction.

"The ancients regarded them [the Achæans] as a branch of the Æolians, with whom they afterwards reunited into one national body, i.e., not as an originally distinct nationality or independent branch of the Greek people. Accordingly, we hear neither of an Achæan language nor of Achæan art. A manifest and decided influence of the maritime Greeks, wherever the Achæans appear, is common to the latter with the Æolians. Achæans are everywhere settled on the coast, and are always regarded as particularly near relations of the Ionians. … The Achæans appear scattered about in localities on the coast of the Ægean so remote from one another, that it is impossible to consider all bearing this name as fragments of a people originally united in one social community; nor do they in fact anywhere appear, properly speaking, as a popular body, as the main stock of the population, but rather as eminent families, from which spring heroes; hence the use of the expression 'Sons of the Achæans' to indicate noble descent."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 3.

      ALSO IN
      M. Duncker,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 2, and book 2, chapter 2.

      See, also,

ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387.
   Mediæval Principality.

Among the conquests of the French and Lombard Crusaders in Greece, after the taking of Constantinople, was that of a major part of the Peloponnesus—then beginning to be called the Morea—by William de Champlitte, a French knight, assisted by Geffrey de Villehardouin, the younger—nephew and namesake of the Marshal of Champagne, who was chronicler of the conquest of the Empire of the East. William de Champlitte was invested with this Principality of Achaia, or of the Morea, as it is variously styled. Geffrey Villehardouin represented him in the government, as his "bailly," for a time, and finally succeeded in supplanting him. Half a century later the Greeks, who had recovered Constantinople, reduced the territory of the Principality of Achaia to about half the peninsula, and a destructive war was waged between the two races. Subsequently the Principality became a fief of the crown of Naples and Sicily, and underwent many changes of possession until the title was in confusion and dispute between the houses of Anjou, Aragon and Savoy. Before it was engulfed finally in the Empire of the Turks, it was ruined by their piracies and ravages.

      G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 8.

ACHMET I., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1603-1617.

ACHMET II., 1691-1695.
ACHMET III., 1703-1730.

A part of the ancient city of Syracuse, Sicily, known as the "outer city," occupying the peninsula north of Ortygia, the island, which was the "inner city."

ACHRIDA, Kingdom of.

After the death of John Zimisces who had reunited Bulgaria to the Byzantine Empire, the Bulgarians were roused to a struggle for the recovery of their independence, under the lead of four brothers of a noble family, all of whom soon perished save one, named Samuel. Samuel proved to be so vigorous and able a soldier and had so much success that he assumed presently the title of king. His authority was established over the greater part of Bulgaria, and extended into Macedonia, Epirus and Illyria. He established his capital at Achrida (modern Ochrida, in Albania), which gave its name to his kingdom. The suppression of this new Bulgarian monarchy occupied the Byzantine Emperor, Basil II., in wars from 981 until 1018, when its last strongholds, including the city of Achrida, were surrendered to him.

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 to 1057,
      book 2, chapter 2, section 2.


ACKERMAN, Convention of (1826).

See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.





ACRABA, Battle of, A. D. 633.

After the death of Mahomet, his successor, Abu Bekr, had to deal with several serious revolts, the most threatening of which was raised by one Moseilama, who had pretended, even in the life-time of the Prophet, to a rival mission of religion. The decisive battle between the followers of Moseilama and those of Mahomet was fought at Acraba, near Yemama. The pretender was slain and few of his army escaped.

Sir W. Muir, Annals of the Early Caliphate, chapter 7.


A sanguinary defeat of the Idumeans or Edomites by the Jews under Judas Maccabæus, B. C. 164.

Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12, chapter 8.



ACRE (St. Jean d'Acre, or Ptolemais): A. D. 1104.
   Conquest, Pillage and Massacre by the Crusaders and Genoese.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.

ACRE: A. D.1187.
   Taken from the Christians by Saladin.

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.

ACRE: A. D. 1189-1191.
   The great siege and reconquest by the Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.

ACRE: A. D. 1256-1257.
   Quarrels and battles between the Genoese and Venetians.

See VENICE: A. D. 1256-1257.

ACRE: A. D. 1291.
   The Final triumph of the Moslems.

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291.

ACRE: 18th Century.
   Restored to Importance by Sheik Daher.

"Acre, or St. Jean d'Acre, celebrated under this name in the history of the Crusades, and in antiquity known by the name of Ptolemais, had, by the middle of the 18th century, been almost entirely forsaken, when Sheik Daher, the Arab rebel, restored its commerce and navigation. This able prince, whose sway comprehended the whole of ancient Galilee, was succeeded by the infamous tyrant, Djezzar-Pasha, who fortified Acre, and adorned it with a mosque, enriched with columns of antique marble, collected from all the neighbouring cities."

M. Malte-Brun, System of Universal Geography, book 28 (volume 1).

ACRE: A. D. 1799.
   Unsuccessful Siege by Bonaparte.

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

ACRE: A. D. 1831-1840.
   Siege and Capture by Mehemed Ali.
   Recovery for the Sultan by the Western Powers.

See TURKS: A. D.1831-1840.




"A road which, by running zigzag up the slope was rendered practicable for chariots, led from the lower city to the Acropolis, on the edge of the platform of which stood the Propylæa, erected by the architect Mnesicles in five years, during the administration of Pericles. … On entering through the gates of the Propylæa a scene of unparalleled grandeur and beauty burst upon the eye. No trace of human dwellings anywhere appeared, but on all sides temples of more or less elevation, of Pentelic marble, beautiful in design and exquisitely delicate in execution, sparkled like piles of alabaster in the sun. On the left stood the Erectheion, or fane of Athena Polias; to the right, that matchless edifice known as the Hecatompedon of old, but to later ages as the Parthenon. Other buildings, all holy to the eyes of an Athenian, lay grouped around these master structures, and, in the open spaces between, in whatever direction the spectator might look, appeared statues, some remarkable for their dimensions, others for their beauty, and all for the legendary sanctity which surrounded them. No city of the ancient or modern world ever rivalled Athens in the riches of art. Our best filled museums, though teeming with her spoils, are poor collections of fragments compared with that assemblage of gods and heroes which peopled the Acropolis, the genuine Olympos of the arts."

J. A. St. John, The Hellenes, book 1, chapter 4.

"Nothing in ancient Greece or Italy could be compared with the Acropolis of Athens, in its combination of beauty and grandeur, surrounded as it was by temples and theatres among its rocks, and encircled by a city abounding with monuments, some of which rivalled those of the Acropolis. Its platform formed one great sanctuary, partitioned only by the boundaries of the … sacred portions. We cannot, therefore, admit the suggestion of Chandler, that, in addition to the temples and other monuments on the summit, there were houses divided into regular streets. This would not have been consonant either with the customs or the good taste of the Athenians. When the people of Attica crowded into Athens at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, and religious prejudices gave way, in every possible case, to the necessities of the occasion, even then the Acropolis remained uninhabited. … The western end of the Acropolis, which furnished the only access to the summit of the hill, was one hundred and sixty eight feet in breadth, an opening so narrow that it appeared practicable to the artists of Pericles to fill up the space with a single building which should serve the purpose of a gateway to the citadel, as well as of a suitable entrance to that glorious display of architecture and sculpture which was within the inclosure. This work [the Propylæa], the greatest production of civil architecture in Athens, which rivalled the Parthenon in felicity of execution, surpassed it in boldness and originality of design. … It may be defined as a wall pierced with five doors, before which on both sides were Doric hexastyle porticoes."

W. M. Leake, Topography of Athens, section 8.

See, also, ATTICA.


See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.


See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.


See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.


See ENGLAND: A. D. 1701.


See IRELAND: A. D. 1660-1665.



See SCOTLAND; A. D. 1660-1666.

ACTIUM: B. C. 434.
   Naval Battle of the Greeks.

   A defeat inflicted upon the Corinthians by the Corcyrians, in
   the contest over Epidamnus which was the prelude to the
   Peloponnesian War.

      E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 4, chapter 1.

ACTIUM: B. C. 31.
   The Victory of Octavius.

See ROME: B. C. 31.


See SUPREMACY, ACTS OF; and ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534; and 1559.


See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559 and 1662-1665.

ACULCO, Battle of (1810).

See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

ACZ, Battle of (1849).

See AUSTRIA, A. D. 1848-1849.

ADALOALDUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 616-626.

ADAMS, John, in the American Revolution.

      1774 (SEPTEMBER); 1775 (MAY-AUGUST);
      1776 (JANUARY-JUNE), 1776 (JULY).

In diplomatic service.

      A. D. 1782 (APRIL); 1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

Presidential election and administration.


ADAMS, John Quincy.
   Negotiation of the Treaty of Ghent.


Presidential election and administration.


ADAMS, Samuel, in and after the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772-1773; 1774 (SEPTEMBER); 1775(MAY); 1787-1789.

ADDA, Battle of the (A. D. 490).

See ROME: A. D. 488-526.

AD DECIMUS, Battle of (A. D. 533).

See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534.


"The homestead of the original settler, his house, farm-buildings and enclosure, 'the toft and croft,' with the share of arable and appurtenant common rights, bore among the northern nations [early Teutonic] the name of Odal, or Edhel; the primitive mother village was an Athelby, or Athelham; the owner was an Athelbonde: the same word Adel or Athel signified also nobility of descent, and an Adaling was a nobleman. Primitive nobility and primitive landownership thus bore the same name."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 3, section 24.

See, also, ALOD, and ETHEL.

ADELAIDE, The founding and naming of.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.


"Adelantamientos was an early term for gubernatorial districts [in Spanish America, the governors bearing the title of Adelantados], generally of undefined limits, to be extended by further conquests."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 6 (Mexico, volume 3), page 520.

ADEODATUS II., Pope, A. D. 672-676.


A name which came to be applied anciently to the tract of country east of the middle Tigris, embracing what was originally the proper territory of Assyria, together with Arbelitis. Under the Parthian monarchy it formed a tributary kingdom, much disputed between Parthia and Armenia. It was seized several times by the Romans, but never permanently held.

G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, page 140.



ADIS, Battle of (B. C. 256).



"The Cushites, the first inhabitants of Arabia, are known in the national traditions by the name of Adites, from their progenitor, who is called Ad, the grandson of Ham."

F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History, book 7, chapter 2.






ADOLPH (of Nassau), King of Germany, A. D. 1291-1298.

ADOLPHUS FREDERICK, King of Sweden, A. D. 1751-1771.


A doctrine, condemned as heretical in the eighth century, which taught that "Christ, as to his human nature, was not truly the Son of God, but only His son by adoption." The dogma is also known as the Felician heresy, from a Spanish bishop, Felix, who was prominent among its supporters. Charlemagne took active measures to suppress the heresy.

J. I. Mombert, History of Charles the Great, book 2, chapter 12.

ADRIA, Proposed Kingdom of.

See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.

ADRIAN VI., Pope, A. D. 1522-1523.


A city in Thrace founded by the Emperor Hadrian and designated by his name. It was the scene of Constantine's victory over Licinius in A. D. 323 (see ROME: 'A. D. 305-323), and of the defeat and death of Valens in battle with the Goths (see GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 378). In 1361 it became for some years the capital of the Turks in Europe (see TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389). It was occupied by the Russians in 1829, and again in 1878 (see TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829, and A. D. 1877-1878), and gave its name to the Treaty negotiated in 1829 between Russia and the Porte (see GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829).

ADRIATIC, The Wedding of the.

See VENICE: A. D. 1177, and 14TH CENTURY.





ADULLAM, Cave of.

When David had been cast out by the Philistines, among whom he sought refuge from the enmity of Saul, "his first retreat was the Cave of Adullam, probably the large cavern not far from Bethlehem, now called Khureitun. From its vicinity to Bethlehem, he was joined there by his whole family, now feeling themselves insecure from Saul's fury. … Besides these were outlaws from every part, including doubtless some of the original Canaanites—of whom the name of one at least has been preserved, Ahimelech the Hittite. In the vast columnar halls and arched chambers of this subterranean palace, all who had any grudge against the existing system gathered round the hero of the coming age."

Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, lecture 22.


See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.


ADWALTON MOOR, Battle of (A. D. 1643).

   This was a battle fought near Bradford, June 29, 1643, in the
   great English Civil War. The Parliamentary forces, under Lord
   Fairfax, were routed by the Royalists, under Newcastle.

C. R. Markham, Life of the Great Lord Fairfax, chapter 11.

ÆAKIDS (Æacids).

The supposed descendants of the demi-god Æakus, whose grandson was Achilles. (See MYRMIDONS.) Miltiades, the hero of Marathon, and Pyrrhus, the warrior King of Epirus, were among those claiming to belong to the royal race of Eakids.



ÆDILES, Roman.

See ROME: B. C. 494-492.


"The two most powerful nations in Gallia were the Ædui [or Hædui] and the Arverni. The Ædui occupied that part which lies between the upper valley of the Loire and the Saone, which river was part of the boundary between them and the Sequani. The Loire separated the Ædui from the Bituriges, whose chief town was Avaricum on the site of Bourges. At this time [B. C.121] the Arverni, the rivals of the Ædui, were seeking the supremacy in Gallia. The Arverni occupied the mountainous country of Auvergne in the centre of France and the fertile valley of the Elaver (Allier) nearly as far as the junction of the Allier and the Loire. … They were on friendly terms with the Allobroges, a powerful nation east of the Rhone, who occupied the country between the Rhone and the Isara (Isère). … In order to break the formidable combination of the Arverni and the Allobroges, the Romans made use of the Ædui, who were the enemies both of the Allobroges and the Arverni. … A treaty was made either at this time or somewhat earlier between the Ædui and the Roman senate, who conferred on their new Gallic friends the honourable title of brothers and kinsmen. This fraternizing was a piece of political cant which the Romans practiced when it was useful."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 1, chapter 21.

See, also, GAULS.



ÆGATIAN ISLES, Naval Battle of the (B. C. 241).



   "The Ægean, or White Sea, … as distinguished from the

      E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      page 413, and foot-note.


   The original name of the northern coast of Peloponnesus, and
   its inhabitants.





A small rocky island in the Saronic gulf, between Attica and Argolis. First colonized by Achæans it was afterwards occupied by Dorians (see GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS) and was unfriendly to Athens. During the sixth century B. C. it rose to great power and commercial importance, and became for a time the most brilliant center of Greek art. At the period of the Persian war, Ægina was "the first maritime power in Greece." But the Æginetans were at that time engaged in war with Athens, as the allies of Thebes, and rather than forego their enmity, they offered submission to the Persian king. The Athenians thereupon appealed to Sparta, as the head of Greece, to interfere, and the Æginetans were compelled to give hostages to Athens for their fidelity to the Hellenic cause. (See GREECE: B. C. 492-491.) They purged themselves to a great extent of their intended treason by the extraordinary valor with which they fought at Salamis. But the sudden pre-eminence to which Athens rose cast a blighting shadow upon Ægina, and in 429 B. C. it lost its independence, the Athenians taking possession of their discomfited rival.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, volume 1, chapter 14.

Also in G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, volume 4, chapter 36.

See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 489-480.

ÆGINA: B. C. 458-456.
   Alliance with Corinth in war with Athens and Megara.
   Defeat and subjugation.

See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

ÆGINA: B. C. 431.
   Expulsion of the Æginetans from their island by the Athenians.
   Their settlement at Thyrea.

See GREECE: B. C. 431-429.

ÆGINA: B. C. 210. Desolation by the Romans.

The first appearance of the Romans in Greece, when they entered the country as the allies of the Ætolians, was signalized by the barbarous destruction of Ægina. The city having been taken, B. C. 210, its entire population was reduced to slavery by the Romans and the land and buildings of the city were sold to Attalus, king of Pergamus.

E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government, chapter 8, section 2.



ÆGITIUM, Battle of (B. C. 426).

A reverse experienced by the Athenian General, Demosthenes, in his invasion of Ætolia, during the Peloponnesian War.

Thucydides, History, book 3, section 97.

ÆGOSPOTAMI (Aigospotamoi), Battle of.

See GREECE: B. C. 405.



   The new name given to Jerusalem by Hadrian.

See JEWS: A. D. 130-134.


"The Ælian and Fufian laws (leges Ælia and Fufia) the age of which, unfortunately we cannot accurately determine. … enacted that a popular assembly [at Rome] might be dissolved, or, in other words, the acceptance of any proposed law prevented, if a magistrate announced to the president of the assembly that it was his intention to choose the same time for watching the heavens. Such an announcement (obnuntiatio) was held to be a sufficient cause for interrupting an assembly."

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 6, chapter 16.


"M. Æmilius Lepidus, Consul for the year 180 B. C. … constructed the great road which bore his name. The Æmilian Way led from Ariminum through the new colony of Bononia to Placentia, being a continuation of the Flaminian Way, or great north road, made by C. Flaminius in 220 B. C. from Rome to Ariminum. At the same epoch, Flaminius the son, being the colleague of Lepidus, made a branch road from Bononia across the Appenines to Arretium."

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 41.

ÆMILIANUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 253.



"The collective stock of Greek nationalities falls, according to the view of those ancient writers who laboured most to obtain an exact knowledge of ethnographic relationships, into three main divisions, Æolians, Dorians and Ionians. … All the other inhabitants of Greece [not Dorians and Ionians] and of the islands included in it, are comprised under the common name of Æolians—a name unknown as yet to Homer, and which was incontestably applied to a great diversity of peoples, among which it is certain that no such homogeneity of race is to be assumed as existed among the lonians and Dorians. Among the two former races, though even these were scarcely in any quarter completely unmixed, there was incontestably to be found a single original stock, to which others had merely been attached, and as it were engrafted, whereas, among the peoples assigned to the Æolians, no such original stock is recognizable, but on the contrary, as great a difference is found between the several members of this race as between Dorians and lonians, and of the so-called Æolians, some stood nearer to the former, others to the latter. … A thorough and careful investigation might well lead to the conclusion that the Greek people was divided not into three, but into two main races, one of which we may call Ionian, the other Dorian, while of the so-called Æolians some, and probably the greater number, belonged to the former, the rest to the latter."

G. F. Schöman, Antiquity of Greece: The State, part 1, chapter 2.

In Greek myth, Æolus, the fancied progenitor of the Æolians, appears as one of the three sons of Hellen. "Æolus is represented as having reigned in Thessaly: his seven sons were Kretheus, Sisyphus, Athamas, Salmoneus, Deion, Magnes and Perieres: his five daughters, Canace, Alcyone, Peisidike, Calyce and Permede. The fables of this race seem to be distinguished by a constant introduction of the God Poseidon, as well as by an unusual prevalence of haughty and presumptuous attributes among the Æolid heroes, leading them to affront the gods by pretences of equality, and sometimes even by defiance."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 6.



See OSCANS; also LATIUM; and ROME; B. C. 458.


Roman citizens who had no political rights.







"At this point [beyond the Suiones] the Suevic Sea [the Baltic], on its eastern shore, washes the tribes of the Æstii, whose rites and fashions and styles of dress are those of the Suevi, while their language is more like the British. They worship the mother of the gods and wear as a religious symbol the device of a wild boar. … They often use clubs, iron weapons but seldom. They are more patient in cultivating corn and other produce than might be expected from the general indolence of the Germans. But they also search the deep and are the only people who gather amber, which they call glesum."—"The Æstii occupied that part of Prussia which is to the north-east of the Vistula. … The name still survives in the form Estonia."

Tacitus, Germany, translated by Church and Brodribb, with note.



Among the Greeks, an expedient "which seems to have been tried not unfrequently in early times, tor preserving or restoring tranquility, was to invest an individual with absolute power, under a peculiar title, which soon became obsolete: that of æsymnetæ. At Cuma, indeed, and in other cities, this was the title of an ordinary magistracy, probably of that which succeeded the hereditary monarchy; but when applied to an extraordinary office, it was equivalent to the title of protector or dictator."

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 10.


See ETHEL, and ADEL.




"Ætolia, the country of Diomed, though famous in the early times, fell back during the migratory period almost into a savage condition, probably through the influx into it of an Illyrian population which became only partially Hellenized. The nation was divided into numerous tribes, among which the most important were the Apodoti, the Ophioneis, the Eurytanes and the Agræans. There were scarcely any cities, village life being preferred universally. … It was not till the wars which arose among Alexander's successors that the Ætolians formed a real political union, and became an important power in Greece."

G. Rawlinson, Manual of Ancient History, book 3.

      See also,


"The Achaian and the Ætolian Leagues, had their constitutions been written down in the shape of a formal document, would have presented but few varieties of importance. The same general form of government prevailed in both; each was federal, each was democratic; each had its popular assembly, its smaller Senate, its general with large powers at the head of all. The differences between the two are merely those differences of detail which will always arise between any two political systems of which neither is slavishly copied from the other. … If therefore federal states or democratic states, or aristocratic states, were necessarily weak or strong, peaceful or aggressive, honest or dishonest, we should see Achaia and Ætolia both exhibiting the same moral characteristics. But history tells another tale. The political conduct of the Achaian League, with some mistakes and some faults, is, on the whole, highly honourable. The political conduct of the Ætolian League is, throughout the century in which we know it best [last half of third and first half of second century B. C.] almost always simply infamous. … The counsels of the Ætolian League were throughout directed to mere plunder, or, at most, to selfish political aggrandisement."

E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government, chapter 6.

The plundering aggressions of the Ætolians involved them in continual war with their Greek kindred and neighbours, and they did not scruple to seek foreign aid. It was through their agency that the Romans were first brought into Greece, and it was by their instrumentality that Antiochus fought his battle with Rome on the sacredest of all Hellenic soil. In the end, B. C. 189, the League was stripped by the Romans of even its nominal independence and sank into a contemptible servitude.

E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government, chapter 7-9.

ALSO IN C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 63-66.


   Conquest by Alexander the Great.
   Founding of Herat and Candahar.

      See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 330-323;
      and INDIA: B. C. 327-312.

AFGHANISTAN: B. C. 301-246.
   In the Syrian Empire.

See SELEUCIDÆ; and MACEDONIA, &c.: 310-301 and after.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 999-1183.
   The Ghaznevide Empire.

      See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183;
      and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 13th Century.
   Conquests of Jinghis-Khan.

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

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1380-1386.
   Conquest by Timour.

See Timour.

   Conquest by Babar.

See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.

   Mahmoud's conquest of Persia.

See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1737-1738.
   Conquest by Nadir Shah.

See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1747-1761.
   The Empire of the Dooranie, Ahmed Abdallee.
   His Conquests in India.

See INDIA; A. D. 1747-1761.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1803-1838.
   Shah Soojah and Dost Mahomed.
   English interference.

"Shah Soojah-ool Moolk, a grandson of the illustrious Ahmed Shah, reigned in Afghanistan from 1803 till 1809. His youth had been full of trouble and vicissitude. He had been a wanderer, on the verge of starvation, a pedlar, and a bandit, who raised money by plundering caravans. His courage was lightly reputed, and it was as a mere creature of circumstance that he reached the throne. His reign was perturbed, and in 1809 he was a fugitive and an exile. Runjeet Singh, the Sikh ruler of the Punjaub, defrauded him of the famous Koh-i-noor, which is now the most precious of the crown jewels of England, and plundered and imprisoned the fallen man. Shah Soojah at length escaped from Lahore. After further misfortunes he at length reached the British frontier station of Loodianah, and in 1816 became a pensioner of the East India Company. After the downfall of Shah Soojah, Afghanistan for many years was a prey to anarchy. At length in 1826, Dost Mahomed succeeded in making himself supreme at Cabul, and this masterful man thenceforward held sway until his death in 1863, uninterruptedly save during the three years of the British occupation. Dost Mahomed was neither kith nor kin to the legitimate dynasty which he displaced. His father Poyndah Khan was an able statesman and gallant soldier. He left twenty-one sons, of whom Futteh Khan was the eldest, and Dost Mahomed one of the youngest. … Throughout his long reign Dost Mahomed was a strong and wise ruler. His youth had been neglected and dissolute. His education was defective, and he had been addicted to wine. Once seated on the throne, the reformation of our Henry V. was not more thorough than was that of Dost Mahomed. He taught himself to read and write, studied the Koran, became scrupulously abstemious, assiduous in affairs, no longer truculent, but courteous. … There was a fine rugged honesty in his nature, and a streak of genuine chivalry; notwithstanding the despite he suffered at our hands, he had a real regard for the English, and his loyalty to us was broken only by his armed support of the Sikhs in the second Punjaub war. The fallen Shah Soojah, from his asylum in Loodianah, was continually intriguing for his restoration. His schemes were long inoperative, and it was not until 1832 that certain arrangements were entered into between him and the Maharaja Runjeet Singh. To an application on Shah Soojah's part for countenance and pecuniary aid, the Anglo-Indian Government replied that to afford him assistance would be inconsistent with the policy of neutrality which the Government had imposed on itself; but it unwisely contributed financially toward his undertaking by granting him four months' pension in advance. Sixteen thousand rupees formed a scant war fund with which to attempt the recovery of a throne, but the Shah started on his errand in February, 1833. After a successful contest with the Ameers of Scinde, he marched on Candahar, and besieged that fortress. Candahar was in extremity when Dost Mahomed, hurrying from Cabul, relieved it, and joining forces with its defenders, he defeated and routed Shah Soojah, who fled precipitately, leaving behind him his artillery and camp equipage. During the Dost's absence in the south, Runjeet Singh's troops crossed the Attock, occupied the Afghan province of Peshawur, and drove the Afghans into the Khyber Pass. No subsequent efforts on Dost Mahomed's part availed to expel the Sikhs from Peshawur, and suspicious of British connivance with Runjeet Singh's successful aggression, he took into consideration the policy of fortifying himself by a counter alliance with Persia. As for Shah Soojah, he had crept back to his refuge at Loodianah. Lord Auckland succeeded Lord William Bentinck as Governor-General of India in March, 1836. In reply to Dost Mahomed's letter of congratulation, his lordship wrote: 'You are aware that it is not the practice of the British Government to interfere with the affairs of other independent States;' an abstention which Lord Auckland was soon to violate. He had brought from England the feeling of disquietude in regard to the designs of Persia and Russia which the communications of our envoy in Persia had fostered in the Home Government, but it would appear that he was wholly undecided what line of action to pursue. 'Swayed,' says Durand, 'by the vague apprehensions of a remote danger entertained by others rather than himself, he despatched to Afghanistan Captain Burnes on a nominally commercial mission, which, in fact, was one of political discovery, but without definite instructions. Burnes, an able but rash and ambitious man, reached Cabul in September, 1837, two months before the Persian army began the siege of Herat. … The Dost made no concealment to Burnes of his approaches to Persia and Russia, in despair of British good offices, and being hungry for assistance from any source to meet the encroachments of the Sikhs, he professed himself ready to abandon his negotiations with the western powers if he were given reason to expect countenance and assistance at the hands of the Anglo-Indian Government. … The situation of Burnes in relation to the Dost was presently complicated by the arrival at Cabul of a Russian officer claiming to be an envoy from the Czar, whose credentials, however, were regarded as dubious, and who, if that circumstance has the least weight, was on his return to Russia utterly repudiated by Count Nesselrode. The Dost took small account of this emissary, continuing to assure Burnes that he cared for no connection except with the English, and Burnes professed to his Government his fullest confidence in the sincerity of those declarations. {12} But the tone of Lord Auckland's reply, addressed to the Dost, was so dictatorial and supercilious as to indicate the writer's intention that it should give offence. It had that effect, and Burnes' mission at once became hopeless. … The Russian envoy, who was profuse in his promises of everything which the Dost was most anxious to obtain, was received into favour and treated with distinction, and on his return journey he effected a treaty with the Candahar chiefs which was presently ratified by the Russian minister at the Persian Court. Burnes, fallen into discredit at Cabul, quitted that place in August 1838. He had not been discreet, but it was not his indiscretion that brought about the failure of his mission. A nefarious transaction, which Kaye denounces with the passion of a just indignation, connects itself with Burnes' negotiations with the Dost; his official correspondence was unscrupulously mutilated and garbled in the published Blue Book with deliberate purpose to deceive the British public. Burnes had failed because, since he had quitted India for Cabul, Lord Auckland's policy had gradually altered. Lord Auckland had landed in India in the character of a man of peace. That, so late as April 1837, he had no design of obstructing the existing situation in Afghanistan is proved by his written statement of that date, that 'the British Government had resolved decidedly to discourage the prosecution by the ex-king Shah Soojah-ool-Moolk, so long as he may remain under our protection, of further schemes of hostility against the chiefs now in power in Cabul and Candahar.' Yet, in the following June, he concluded a treaty which sent Shah Soojah to Cabul, escorted by British bayonets. Of this inconsistency no explanation presents itself. It was a far cry from our frontier on the Sutlej to Herat in the confines of Central Asia—a distance of more than 1,200 miles, over some of the most arduous marching ground in the known world. … Lord William Bentinck, Lord Auckland's predecessor, denounced the project as an act of incredible folly. Marquis Wellesley regarded 'this wild expedition into a distant region of rocks and deserts, of sands and ice and snow,' as an act of infatuation. The Duke of Wellington pronounced with prophetic sagacity, that the consequence of once crossing the Indus to settle a government in Afghanistan would be a perennial march into that country."

A. Forbes, The Afghan Wars, chapter 1.

ALSO IN; J. P. Ferrier, History of the Afghans, chapter 10-20.

Mohan Lal, Life of Amir Dost Mohammed Khan, volume 1.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1838-1842.
   English invasion, and restoration of Soojah Dowlah.
   The revolt at Cabul.
   Horrors of the British retreat.
   Destruction of the entire army, save one man, only.
   Sale's defence of Jellalabad.

"To approach Afghanistan it was necessary to secure the friendship of the Sikhs, who were, indeed, ready enough to join against their old enemies; and a threefold treaty was contracted between Runjeet Singh, the English, and Shah Soojah for the restoration of the banished house. The expedition—which according to the original intention was to have been carried out chiefly by means of troops in the pay of Shah Soojah and the Sikhs—rapidly grew into an English invasion of Afghanistan. A considerable force was gathered on the Sikh frontier from Bengal; a second army, under General Keane, was to come up from Kurrachee through Sindh. Both of these armies, and the troops of Shah Soojah, were to enter the highlands of Afghanistan by the Bolan Pass. As the Sikhs would not willingly allow the free passage of our troops through their country, an additional burden was laid upon the armies,- the independent Ameers of Sindh had to be coerced. At length, with much trouble from the difficulties of the country and the loss of the commissariat animals, the forces were all collected under the command of Keane beyond the passes. The want of food permitted of no delay; the army pushed on to Candahar. Shah Soojah was declared Monarch of the southern Principality. Thence the troops moved rapidly onwards towards the more important and difficult conquest of Cabul. Ghuznee, a fortress of great strength, lay in the way. In their hasty movements the English had left their battering train behind, but the gates of the fortress were blown in with gunpowder, and by a brilliant feat of arms the fortress was stormed. Nor did the English army encounter any important resistance subsequently. Dost Mohamed found his followers deserting him, and withdrew northwards into the mountains of the Hindoo Koosh. With all the splendour that could be collected, Shah Soojah was brought back to his throne in the Bala Hissar, the fortress Palace of Cabul. … For the moment the policy seemed thoroughly successful. The English Ministry could feel that a fresh check had been placed upon its Russian rival, and no one dreamt of the terrible retribution that was in store for the unjust violence done to the feelings of a people. … Dost Mohamed thought it prudent to surrender himself to the English envoy, Sir William Macnaghten, and to withdraw with his family to the English provinces of Hindostan [November, 1840]. He was there well received and treated with liberality; for, as both the Governor General and his chief adviser Macnaghten felt, he had not in fact in any way offended us, but had fallen a victim to our policy. It was in the full belief that their policy in India had been crowned with permanent success that the Whig Ministers withdrew from office, leaving their successors to encounter the terrible results to which it led. For while the English officials were blindly congratulating themselves upon the happy completion of their enterprise, to an observant eye signs of approaching difficulty were on all sides visible. … The removal of the strong rule of the Barrukzyes opened a door for undefined hopes to many of the other families and tribes. The whole country was full of intrigues and of diplomatic bargaining, carried on by the English political agents with the various chiefs and leaders. But they soon found that the hopes excited by these negotiations were illusory. The allowances for which they had bargained were reduced, for the English envoy began to be disquieted at the vast expenses of the Government. They did not find that they derived any advantages from the establishment of the new puppet King, Soojah Dowlah; and every Mahomedan, even the very king himself, felt disgraced at the predominance of the English infidels. {13} But as no actual insurrection broke out, Macnaghten, a man of sanguine temperament and anxious to believe what he wished, in spite of unmistakable warnings as to the real feeling of the people, clung with almost angry vehemence to the persuasion that all was going well, and that the new King had a real hold upon the people's affection. So completely had he deceived himself on this point, that he had decided to send back a portion of the English army, under General Sale, into Hindostan. He even intended to accompany it himself to enjoy the peaceful post of Governor of Bombay, with which his successful policy had been rewarded. His place was to be taken by Sir Alexander Burnes, whose view of the troubled condition of the country underlying the comparative calm of the surface was much truer than that of Macnaghten, but who, perhaps from that very fact, was far less popular among the chiefs. The army which was to remain at Candahar was under the command of General Nott, an able and decided if somewhat irascible man. But General Elphinstone, the commander of the troops at Cabul, was of quite a different stamp. He was much respected and liked for his honourable character and social qualities, but was advanced in years, a confirmed invalid, and wholly wanting in the vigour and decision which his critical position was likely to require. The fool's paradise with which the English Envoy had surrounded himself was rudely destroyed. He had persuaded himself that the frequently recurring disturbances, and especially the insurrection of the Ghilzyes between Cabul and Jellalabad, were mere local outbreaks. But In fact a great conspiracy was on foot in which the chiefs of nearly every important tribe in the country were implicated. On the evening of the 1st of November [1841] a meeting of the chiefs was held, and It was decided that an immediate attack should be made on the house of Sir Alexander Burnes. The following morning an angry crowd of assailants stormed the houses of Sir Alexander Burnes and Captain Johnson, murdering the inmates, and rifling the treasure-chests belonging to Soojah Dowlah's army. Soon the whole city was in wild insurrection. The evidence is nearly irresistible that a little decision and rapidity of action on the part of the military would have at once crushed the outbreak. But although the attack on Burnes's house was known, no troops were sent to his assistance. Indeed, that unbroken course of folly and mismanagement which marked the conduct of our military affairs throughout this crisis had already begun. Instead of occupying the fortress of the Bala Hissar, where the army would have been in comparative security, Elphlnstone had placed his troops in cantonments far too extensive to be properly defended, surrounded by an entrenchment of the most insignificant character, commanded on almost all sides by higher ground. To complete the unfitness of the position, the commissariat supplies were not stored within the cantonments, but were placed in an isolated fort at some little distance. An ill-sustained and futile assault was made upon the town on the 3d of November, but from that time onwards the British troops lay with incomprehensible supineness awaiting their fate in their defenceless position. The commissariat fort soon fell into the hands of the enemy and rendered their situation still more deplorable. Some flashes of bravery now and then lighted up the sombre scene of helpless misfortune, and served to show that destruction might even yet have been averted by a little firmness. … But the commander had already begun to despair, and before many days had passed he was thinking of making terms with the enemy. Macnaghten had no course open to him under such circumstances but to adopt the suggestion of the general, and attempt as well as he could by bribes, cajolery, and intrigue, to divide the chiefs and secure a safe retreat for the English. Akbar Khan, the son of Dost Mohamed, though not present at the beginning of the insurrection, had arrived from the northern mountains, and at once asserted a predominant influence in the insurgent councils. With him and with the other insurgent chiefs Macnaghten entered into an arrangement by which he promised to withdraw the English entirely from the country if a safe passage were secured for the army through the passes. … While ostensibly treating with the Barrukzye chiefs, he intrigued on all sides with the rival tribes. His double dealing was taken advantage of by Akbar Khan. He sent messengers to Macnaghten proposing that the English should make a separate treaty with himself and support him with their troops in an assault upon some of his rivals. The proposition was a mere trap, and the envoy fell into it. Ordering troops to be got ready, he hurried to a meeting with Akbar to complete the arrangement. There he found himself in the presence of the brother and relatives of the very men against whom he was plotting, and was seized and murdered by Akbar's own hand [December 23]. Still the General thought of nothing but surrender. The negotiations were entrusted to Major Pottinger. The terms of the chiefs gradually rose, and at length with much confusion the wretched army marched out of the cantonments [January 6, 1842], leaving behind nearly all the cannon and superfluous military stores. An Afghan escort to secure the safety of the troops on their perilous journey had been promised, but the promise was not kept. The horrors of the retreat form one of the darkest passages in English military history. In bitter cold and snow, which took all life out of the wretched Sepoys, without proper clothing or shelter, and hampered by a disorderly mass of thousands of camp-followers, the army entered the terrible defiles which lie between Cabul and Jellalabad. Whether Akbar Khan could, had he wished it, have restrained his fanatical followers is uncertain. As a fact the retiring crowd—it can scarcely be called an army—was a mere unresisting prey to the assaults of the mountaineers. Constant communication was kept up with Akbar; on the third day all the ladies and children with the married men were placed in his hands, and finally even the two generals gave themselves up as hostages, always in the hope that the remnant of the army might be allowed to escape."

J. F. Bright, History of England, volume 4, pages 61-66.


"Then the march of the army, without a general, went on again. Soon it became the story of a general without an army; before very long there was neither general nor army. It is idle to lengthen a tale of mere horrors. The straggling remnant of an army entered the Jugdulluk Pass—a dark, steep, narrow, ascending path between crags. The miserable toilers found that the fanatical, implacable tribes had barricaded the pass. All was over. The army of Cabul was finally extinguished in that barricaded pass. It was a trap; the British were taken in it. A few mere fugitives escaped from the scene of actual slaughter, and were on the road to Jellalabad, where Sale and his little army were holding their own. When they were within sixteen miles of Jellalabad the number was reduced to six. Of these six five were killed by straggling marauders on the way. One man alone reached Jellalabad to tell the tale. Literally one man, Dr. Brydon, came to Jellalabad [January 13] out of a moving host which had numbered in all some 16,000 when it set out on its march. The curious eye will search through history or fiction in vain for any picture more thrilling with the suggestions of an awful catastrophe than that of this solitary survivor, faint and reeling on his jaded horse, as he appeared under the walls of Jellalabad, to bear the tidings of our Thermopylae of pain and shame. This is the crisis of the story. With this at least the worst of the pain and shame were destined to end. The rest is all, so far as we are concerned, reaction and recovery. Our successes are common enough; we may tell their tale briefly in this instance. The garrison at Jellalabad had received before Dr. Brydon's arrival an intimation that they were to go out and march toward India in accordance with the terms of the treaty extorted from Elphinstone at Cabul. They very properly declined to be bound by a treaty which, as General Sale rightly conjectured, had been 'forced from our envoy and military commander with the knives at their throats.' General Sale's determination was clear and simple. 'I propose to hold this place on the part of Government until I receive its order to the contrary.' This resolve of Sale's was really the turning point of the history. Sale held Jellalabad; Nott was at Candahar. Akbar Khan besieged Jellalabad. Nature seemed to have declared herself emphatically on his side, for a succession of earthquake shocks shattered the walls of the place, and produced more terrible destruction than the most formidable guns of modern warfare could have done. But the garrison held out fearlessly; they restored the parapets, re-established every battery, retrenched the whole of the gates and built up all the breaches. They resisted every attempt of Akbar Khan to advance upon their works, and at length, when it became certain that General Pollock was forcing the Khyber Pass to come to their relief, they determined to attack Akbar Khan's army; they issued boldly out of their forts, forced a battle on the Afghan chief, and completely defeated him. Before Pollock, having gallantly fought his way through the Khyber Pass, had reached Jellalabad [April 16] the beleaguering army had been entirely defeated and dispersed. … Meanwhile the unfortunate Shah Soojah, whom we had restored with so much pomp of announcement to the throne of his ancestors, was dead. He was assassinated in Cabul, soon after the departure of the British, … and his body, stripped of its royal robes and its many jewels, was flung into a ditch."

J. McCarthy, History of our own Times, volume 1, chapter 11.

      ALSO IN
      J. W. Kaye,
      History of the War in Afghanistan.

      G. R. Gleig,
      Sale's Brigade in Afghanistan

      Lady Sale,
      Journal of the Disasters in Afghanistan.

      Mohan Lal,
      Life of Dost Mohammed,
      chapters 15-18 (volume 2).

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1842-1869.
   The British return to Cabul.
   Restoration of Dost Mahomed.

It was not till September that General Pollock "could obtain permission from the Governor-General, Lord Ellenborough, to advance against Cabul, though both he and Nott were burning to do so. When Pollock did advance, he found the enemy posted at Jugdulluck, the scene of the massacre. 'Here,' says one writer, 'the skeletons lay so thick that they had to be cleared away to allow the guns to pass. The savage grandeur of the scene rendered it a fitting place for the deed of blood which had been enacted under its horrid shade, never yet pierced in some places by sunlight. The road was strewn for two miles with mouldering skeletons like a charnel house.' Now the enemy found they had to deal with other men, under other leaders, for, putting their whole energy into the work, the British troops scaled the heights and steep ascents, and defeated the enemy in their strongholds on all sides. After one more severe fight with Akbar Khan, and all the force he could collect, the enemy were beaten, and driven from their mountains, and the force marched quietly into Cabul. Nott, on his side, started from Candahar on the 7th of August, and, after fighting several small battles with the enemy, he captured Ghuzni, where Palmer and his garrison had been destroyed. From Ghuzni General Nott brought away, by command of Lord Ellenborough, the gates of Somnauth [said to have been taken from the Hindu temple of Somnauth by Mahmoud of Ghazni, the first Mohammedan invader of India, in 1024], which formed the subject of the celebrated 'Proclamation of the Gates,' as it was called. This proclamation, issued by Lord Ellenborough, brought upon him endless ridicule, and it was indeed at first considered to be a satire of his enemies, in imitation of Napoleon's address from the Pyramids; the Duke of Wellington called it 'The Song of Triumph.' … This proclamation, put forth with so much flourishing of trumpets and ado, was really an insult to those whom it professed to praise, it was an insult to the Mohammedans under our rule, for their power was gone, it was also an insult to the Hindoos, for their temple of Somnauth was in ruins. These celebrated gates, which are believed to be imitations of the original gates, are now lying neglected and worm-eaten, in the back part of a small museum at Agra. But to return, General Nott, having captured Ghuzni and defeated Sultan Jan, pushed on to Cabul, where he arrived on the 17th of September, and met Pollock. The English prisoners (amongst whom were Brigadier Shelton and Lady Sale), who had been captured at the time of the massacre, were brought, or found their own way, to General Pollock's camp. General Elphinstone had died during his captivity. It was not now considered necessary to take any further steps; the bazaar in Cabul was destroyed, and on the 12th of October Pollock and Nott turned their faces southwards, and began their march into India by the Khyber route. The Afghans in captivity were sent back, and the Governor-General received the troops at Ferozepoor. {15} Thus ended the Afghan war 01 1838-42. … The war being over, we withdrew our forces into India, leaving the son of Shah Soojah, Fathi Jung, who had escaped from Cabul when his father was murdered, as king of the country, a position that he was unable to maintain long, being very shortly afterward, assassinated. In 1842 Dost Mahomed, the ruler whom we had deposed, and who had been living at our expense in India, returned to Cabul and resumed his former position as king of the country, still bearing ill-will towards us, which he showed on several occasions, notably during the Sikh war, when he sent a body of his horsemen to fight for the Sikhs, and he himself marched an army through the Khyber to Peshawur to assist our enemies. However, the occupation of the Punjab forced upon Dost Mahomed the necessity of being on friendly terms with his powerful neighbour; he therefore concluded a friendly treaty with us in 1854, hoping thereby that our power would be used to prevent the intrigues of Persia against his kingdom. This hope was shortly after realized, for in 1856 we declared war against Persia, an event which was greatly to the advantage of Dost Mahomed, as it prevented Persian encroachments upon his territory. This war lasted but a short time, for early in 1857 an agreement was signed between England and Persia, by which the latter renounced all claims over Herat and Afghanistan. Herat, however, still remained independent of Afghanistan, until 1863, when Dost Mahomed attacked and took the town, thus uniting the whole kingdom, including Candahar and Afghan Turkestan, under his rule. This was almost the last act of the Ameer's life, for a few days after taking Herat he died. By his will he directed that Shere Ali, one of his sons, should succeed him as Ameer of Afghanistan. The new Ameer immediately wrote to the Governor-General of India, Lord Elgin, in a friendly tone, asking that his succession might be acknowledged. Lord Elgin, however, as the commencement of the Liberal policy of 'masterly inactivity' neglected to answer the letter, a neglect which cannot but be deeply regretted, as Shere Ali was at all events the de facto ruler of the country, and even had he been beaten by any other rival for the throne, it would have been time enough to acknowledge that rival as soon as he was really ruler of the country. When six months later a cold acknowledgement of the letter was given by Sir William Denison, and when a request that the Ameer made for 6,000 muskets had been refused by Lord Lawrence, the Ameer concluded that the disposition of England towards him was not that of a friend; particularly as, when later on, two of his brothers revolted against him, each of them was told by the Government that he would be acknowledged for that part of the country which he brought under his power. However, after various changes in fortune, in 1869 Shere Ali finally defeated his two brothers Afzool and Azim, together with Afzool's son, Abdurrahman."

P. F. Walker, Afghanistan, pages 45-51.

      ALSO IN
      J. W. Kaye,
      History of the War in Afghanistan

      G. B. Malleson,
      History of Afghanistan,
      chapters 11.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.
   The second war with the English and its causes.

The period of disturbance in Afghanistan, during the struggle of Shere Ali with his brothers, coincided with the vice royalty of Lord Lawrence in India. The policy of Lord Lawrence, "sometimes slightingly spoken of as masterly inactivity, consisted in holding entirely aloof from the dynastic quarrels of the Afghans … and in attempting to cultivate the friendship of the Ameer by gifts of money and arms, while carefully avoiding topics of offence. … Lord Lawrence was himself unable to meet the Ameer, but his successor, Lord Mayo, had an interview with him at Umballah in 1869. … Lord Mayo adhered to the policy of his predecessor. He refused to enter into any close alliance, he refused to pledge himself to support any dynasty. But on the other hand he promised that he would not press for the admission of any English officers as Residents in Afghanistan. The return expected by England for this attitude of friendly non-interference was that every other foreign state, and especially Russia, should be forbidden to mix either directly or indirectly with the affairs of the country in which our interests were so closely involved. … But a different view was held by another school of Indian politicians, and was supported by men of such eminence as Sir Bartle Frere and Sir Henry Rawlinson. Their view was known as the Sindh Policy as contrasted with that of the Punjab. It appeared to them desirable that English agents should be established at Quetta, Candahar, and Herat, if not at Cabul itself, to keep the Indian Government completely informed of the affairs of Afghanistan, and to maintain English influence in the country. In 1874, upon the accession of the Conservative Ministry, Sir Bartle Frere produced a memorandum in which this policy was ably maintained. … A Viceroy whose views were more in accordance with those of the Government, and who was likely to be a more ready instrument in [its] hands, was found in Lord Lytton, who went to India intrusted with the duty of giving effect to the new policy. He was instructed. … to continue payments of money, to recognise the permanence of the existing dynasty, and to give a pledge of material support in case of unprovoked foreign aggression, but to insist on the acceptance of an English Resident at certain places in Afghanistan in exchange for these advantages. … Lord Lawrence and those who thought with him in England prophesied from the first the disastrous results which would arise from the alienation of the Afghans. … The suggestion of Lord Lytton that an English Commission should go to Cabul to discuss matters of common interest to the two Governments, was calculated … to excite feelings already somewhat unfriendly to England. He [Shere Ali] rejected the mission, and formulated his grievances. … Lord Lytton waived for a time the despatch of the mission, and consented to a meeting between the Minister of the Ameer and Sir Lewis Pelly at Peshawur. … The English Commissioner was instructed to declare that the one indispensable condition of the Treaty was the admission of an English representative within the limits of Afghanistan. The almost piteous request on the part of the Afghans for the relaxation of this demand proved unavailing, and the sudden death of the Ameer's envoy formed a good excuse for breaking off the negotiation. {16} Lord Lytton treated the Ameer as incorrigible, gave him to understand that the English would proceed to secure their frontier without further reference to him, and withdrew his native agent from Cabul. While the relations between the two countries were in this uncomfortable condition, information reached India that a Russian mission had been received at Cabul. It was just at this time that the action of the Home Government seemed to be tending rapidly towards a war with Russia. … As the despatch of a mission from Russia was contrary to the engagements of that country, and its reception under existing circumstances wore an unfriendly aspect, Lord Lytton saw his way with some plausible justification to demand the reception at Cabul of an English embassy. He notified his intention to the Ameer, but without waiting for an answer selected Sir Neville Chamberlain as his envoy, and sent him forward with an escort of more than 1,000 men, too large, as it was observed, for peace, too small for war. As a matter of course the mission was not admitted. … An outcry was raised both in England and in India. … Troops were hastily collected upon the Indian frontier; and a curious light was thrown on what had been done by the assertion of the Premier at the Guildhall banquet that the object in view was the formation of a 'scientific frontier;' in other words, throwing aside all former pretences, he declared that the policy of England was to make use of the opportunity offered for direct territorial aggression. … As had been foreseen by all parties from the first, the English armies were entirely successful in their first advance [November, 1878]. … By the close of December Jellalabad was in the hands of Browne, the Shutargardan Pass had been surmounted by Roberts, and in January Stewart established himself in Candahar. When the resistance of his army proved ineffectual, Shere Ali had taken to flight, only to die. His refractory son Yakoob Khan was drawn from his prison and assumed the reins of government as regent. … Yakoob readily granted the English demands, consenting to place his foreign relations under British control, and to accept British agencies. With considerably more reluctance, he allowed what was required for the rectification of the frontier to pass into English hands. He received in exchange a promise of support by the British Government, and an annual subsidy of £60,000. On the conclusion of the treaty the troops in the Jellalabad Valley withdrew within the new frontier, and Yakoob Khan was left to establish his authority as best he could at Cabul, whither in July Cavagnari with an escort of twenty-six troopers and eighty infantry betook himself. Then was enacted again the sad story which preluded the first Afghan war. All the parts and scenes in the drama repeated themselves with curious uniformity—the English Resident with his little garrison trusting blindly to his capacity for influencing the Afghan mind, the puppet king, without the power to make himself respected, irritated by the constant presence of the Resident, the chiefs mutually distrustful and at one in nothing save their hatred of English interference, the people seething with anger against the infidel foreigner, a wild outbreak which the Ameer, even had he wished it, could not control, an attack upon the Residency and the complete destruction [Sept., 1879] after a gallant but futile resistance of the Resident and his entire escort. Fortunately the extreme disaster of the previous war was avoided. The English troops which were withdrawn from the country were still within reach. … About the 24th of September, three weeks after the outbreak, the Cabul field force under General Roberts was able to move. On the 5th of October it forced its way into the Logar Valley at Charassiab, and on the 12th General Roberts was able to make his formal entry into the city of Cabul. … The Ameer was deposed, martial law was established, the disarmament of the people required under pain of death, and the country scoured to bring in for punishment those chiefly implicated in the late outbreak. While thus engaged in carrying out his work of retribution, the wave of insurrection closed behind the English general, communication through the Kuram Valley was cut off, and he was left to pass the winter with an army of some 8,000 men connected with India only by the Kybur Pass. … A new and formidable personage … now made his appearance on the scene. This was Abdurahman, the nephew and rival of the late Shere Ali, who upon the defeat of his pretensions had sought refuge in Turkestan, and was supposed to be supported by the friendship of Russia. The expected attack did not take place, constant reinforcements had raised the Cabul army to 20,000, and rendered it too strong to be assailed. … It was thought desirable to break up Afghanistan into a northern and southern province. … The policy thus declared was carried out. A certain Shere Ali, a cousin of the late Ameer of the same name, was appointed Wali or Governor of Candahar. In the north signs were visible that the only possible successor to the throne of Cabul would be Abdurahman. … The Bengal army under General Stewart was to march northwards, and, suppressing on the way the Ghuznee insurgents, was to join the Cabul army in a sort of triumphant return to Peshawur. The first part of the programme was carried out. … The second part of the plan was fated to be interrupted by a serious disaster which rendered it for a while uncertain whether the withdrawal of the troops from Afghanistan was possible. … Ayoob had always expressed his disapproval of his brother's friendship for the English, and had constantly refused to accept their overtures. Though little was known about him, rumours were afloat that he intended to advance upon Ghuznee, and join the insurgents there. At length about the middle of June [1880] his army started. … But before the end of June Farah had been reached and it seemed plain that Candahar would be assaulted. … General Burrows found it necessary to fall back to a ridge some forty-five miles from Candahar called Kush-y-Nakhud. There is a pass called Maiwand to the north of the high-road to Candahar, by which an army avoiding the position on the ridge might advance upon the city. On the 27th of July the Afghan troops were seen moving in the direction of this pass. In his attempt to stop them with his small force, numbering about 2,500 men, General Burrows was disastrously defeated. With difficulty and with the loss of seven guns, about half the English troops returned to Candahar. {17} General Primrose, who was in command, had no choice but to strengthen the place, submit to an investment, and wait till he should be rescued. … The troops at Cabul were on the point of withdrawing when the news of the disaster reached them. It was at once decided that the pick of the army under General Roberts should push forward to the beleaguered city, while General Stewart with the remainder should carry out the intended withdrawal. … With about 10,000 fighting men and 8,000 camp followers General Roberts brought to a successful issue his remarkable enterprise, … falling upon the army of the Ameer and entirely dispersing it a short distance outside the city. All those at all inclined to the forward policy clamoured for the maintenance of a British force in Candahar. But the Government firmly and decisively refused to consent to anything approaching to a permanent occupation. … The struggle between Abdurahman and Ayoob continued for a while, and until it was over the English troops remained at Quetta. But when Abdurahman had been several times victorious over his rival and in October [1881] occupied Herat, it was thought safe to complete the evacuation, leaving Abdurahman for the time at least generally accepted as Ameer."

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 4, pages 534-544.

ALSO IN A. Forbes, The Afghan Wars, part 2.

      Duke of Argyll,
      The Afghan Question from 1841 to 1878

      G. B. Malleson,
      The Russo-Afghan Question

—————AFGHANISTAN: End—————

AFRICA: The name as anciently applied.


AFRICA: The Roman Province.

"Territorial sovereignty over the whole of North Africa had doubtless already been claimed on the part of the Roman Republic, perhaps as a portion of the Carthaginian inheritance, perhaps because 'our sea' early became one of the fundamental ideas of the Roman commonwealth; and, in so far, all its coasts were regarded by the Romans even of the developed republic as their true property. Nor had this claim of Rome ever been properly contested by the larger states of North Africa after the destruction of Carthage. … The arrangements which the emperors made were carried out quite after the same way in the territory of the dependent princes as in the immediate territory of Rome; it was the Roman government that regulated the boundaries in all North Africa, and constituted Roman communities at its discretion, in the kingdom of Mauretania no less than in the province of Numidia. We cannot therefore speak, in the strict sense, of a Roman subjugation of North Africa. The Romans did not conquer it like the Phœnicians or the French; but they ruled over Numidia as over Mauretania, first as suzerains, then as successors of the native governments. … As for the previous rulers, so also doubtless for Roman civilization there was to be found a limit to the south, but hardly so for the Roman territorial supremacy. There is never mention of any formal extension or taking back of the frontier in Africa. … The former territory of Carthage and the larger part of the earlier kingdom of Numidia, united with it by the dictator Cæsar, or, as they also called it, the old and new Africa, formed until the end of the reign of Tiberius the province of that name [Africa], which extended from the boundary of Cyrene to the river Ampsaga, embracing the modern state of Tripoli, as well as Tunis and the French province of Constantine. … Mauretania was not a heritage like Africa and Numidia. … The Romans can scarcely have taken over the Empire of the Mauretanian kings in quite the same extent as these possessed it; but … probably the whole south as far as the great desert passed as imperial land."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 13.


AFRICA: The Mediæval City.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

   Moslem conquest and Moslem States in the North.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST, &c.: A. D. 640-646; 647-709,
      and 908-1171;
      also BARBARY STATES; EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517, and after;
      and SUDAN.

   Portuguese Exploration of the Atlantic Coast.
   The rounding of the Cape.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460, and 1463-1498.

   Dutch and English Colonization.


AFRICA: A. D. 1787-1807.
   Settlement of Sierra Leone.


AFRICA: A. D. 1820-1822.
   The founding of Liberia.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1816-1847.

AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.
   Partition of the interior between European Powers.

"The partition of Africa may be said to date from the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 [see CONGO FREE STATE]. Prior to that Conference the question of inland boundaries was scarcely considered. … The founding of the Congo Independent State was probably the most important result of the Conference. … Two months after the Conference had concluded its labours, Great Britain and Germany had a serious dispute in regard to their respective spheres of influence on the Gulf of Guinea. … The compromise … arrived at placed the Mission Station of Victoria within the German sphere of influence." The frontier between the two spheres of influence on the Bight of Biafra was subsequently defined by a line drawn, in 1886, from the coast to Yola, on the Benué. The Royal Niger Company, constituted by a royal charter, … "was given administrative powers over territories covered by its treaties. The regions thereby placed under British protection … apart from the Oil Rivers District, which is directly administered by the Crown, embrace the coastal lands between Lagos and the northern frontier of Camarons, the Lower Niger (including territories of Sokoto, Gandu and Borgo), and the Benué from Yola to its confluence." By a Protocol signed December 24, 1885, Germany and France "defined their respective spheres of influence and action on the Bight of Biafra, and also on the Slave Coast and in Senegambia." This "fixed the inland extension of the German sphere of influence (Camarons) at 15° East longitude, Greenwich. … At present it allows the French Congo territories to expand along the western bank of the M'bangi … provided no other tributary of the M'bangi-Congo is found to the west, in which case, according to the Berlin Treaty of 1884-85, the conventional basin of the Congo would gain an extension." On the 12th of May, 1886, France and Portugal signed a convention by which France "secured the exclusive control of both banks of the Casamanza (in Senegambia), and the Portuguese frontier in the south was advanced approximately to the southern limit of the basin of the Casini. {18} On the Congo, Portugal retained the Massabi district, to which France had laid claim, but both banks of the Loango were left to France." In 1884 three representatives of the Society for German Colonization—Dr. Peters, Dr. Jühlke, and Count Pfeil—quietly concluded treaties with the chiefs of Useguha, Ukami, Nguru, and Usagara, by which those territories were conveyed to the Society in question. "Dr. Peters … armed with his treaties, returned to Berlin in February, 1885. On the 27th February, the day following the signature of the General Act of the Berlin Conference, an Imperial Schutzbrief, or Charter of Protection, secured to the Society for German Colonization the territories … acquired for them through Dr. Peters' treaties: in other words, a German Protectorate was proclaimed. When it became known that Germany had seized upon the Zanzibar mainland, the indignation in colonial circles knew no bounds. … Prior to 1884, the continental lands facing Zanzibar were almost exclusively under British influence. The principal traders were British subjects, and the Sultan's Government was administered under the advice of the British Resident. The entire region between the Coast and the Lakes was regarded as being under the nominal suzerainty of the Sultan. … Still, Great Britain had no territorial claims on the dominions of the Sultan." The Sultan formally protested and Great Britain championed his cause; but to no effect. In the end the Sultan of Zanzibar yielded the German Protectorate over the four inland provinces and over Vitu, and the British and German Governments arranged questions between them, provisionally, by the Anglo-German Convention of 1886, which was afterwards superseded by the more definite Convention of July 1890, which will be spoken of below. In April 1887, the rights of the Society for German Colonization were transferred to the German East Africa Association, with Dr. Peters at its head. The British East Africa Company took over concessions that had been granted by the Sultan of Zanzibar to Sir William Mackinnon, and received a royal charter in September, 1888. In South-west Africa, "an enterprising Bremen merchant, Herr Lüderitz, and subsequently the German Consul-General, Dr. Nachtigal, concluded a series of political and commercial treaties with native chiefs, whereby a claim was instituted over Angra Pequeña, and over vast districts in the Interior between the Orange River and Cape Frio. … It was useless for the Cape colonists to protest. On the 13th October 1884 Germany formally notified to the Powers her Protectorate over South-West Africa. … On 3rd August 1885 the German Colonial Company for South-West Africa was founded, and …. received the Imperial sanction for its incorporation. But in August 1886 a new Association was formed—the German West-Africa Company—and the administration of its territories was placed under an Imperial Commissioner. … The intrusion of Germany into South-West Africa acted as a check upon, no less than a spur to, the extension of British influence northwards to the Zambezi. Another obstacle to this extension arose from the Boer insurrection." The Transvaal, with increased independence had adopted the title of South African Republic. "Zulu-land, having lost its independence, was partitioned: a third of its territories, over which a republic had been proclaimed, was absorbed (October 1887) by the Transvaal; the remainder was added (14th May 1887) to the British possessions. Amatonga-land was in 1888 also taken under British protection. By a convention with the South African Republic, Britain acquired in 1884 the Crown colony of Bechuana-land; and in the early part of 1885 a British Protectorate was proclaimed over the remaining portion of Bechuana-land." Furthermore, "a British Protectorate was instituted [1885] over the country bounded by the Zambezi in the north, the British possessions in the south, 'the Portuguese province of Sofala' in the east, and the 20th degree of east longitude in the west. It was at this juncture that Mr. Cecil Rhodes came forward, and, having obtained certain concessions from Lobengula, founded the British South Africa Company, … On the 29th October 1889, the British South Africa Company was granted a royal charter. It was declared in this charter that the principal field of the operations of the British South African Company shall be the region of South Africa lying immediately to the north of British Bechuanaland, and to the north and west of the South African Republic, and to the west of the Portuguese dominions.'" No northern limit was given, and the other boundaries were vaguely defined. The position of Swazi-land was definitely settled in 1890 by an arrangement between Great Britain and the South African Republic, which provides for the continued independence of Swazi-land and a joint control over the white settlers. A British Protectorate was proclaimed over Nyassa-Viand and the Shiré Highlands in 1889-90. To return now to the proceedings of other Powers in Africa: "Italy took formal possession, in July 1882, of the bay and territory of Assab. The Italian coast-line on the Red Sea was extended from Ras Kasar (18° 2' North Latitude) to the southern boundary of Raheita, towards Obok. During 1889, shortly after the death of King Johannes, Keren and Asmara were occupied by Italian troops. Menelik of Shoa, who succeeded to the throne of Abyssinia after subjugating all the Abyssinian provinces, except Tigré, dispatched an embassy to King Humbert, the result of which was that the new Negus acknowledged (29th September, 1889) the Protectorate of Italy over Abyssinia, and its sovereignty over the territories of Massawa, Keren and Asmara." By the Protocols of 24th March and 15th April, 1891, Italy and Great Britain define their respective Spheres of Influence in East Africa. "But since then Italy has practically withdrawn from her position. She has absolutely no hold over Abyssinia. … Italy has also succeeded in establishing herself on the Somál Coast." By treaties concluded in 1889, "the coastal lands between Cape Warsheikh (about 2° 30' North latitude), and Cape Bedwin (8° 3' North latitude)—a distance of 450 miles—were placed under Italian protection. Italy subsequently extended (1890) her Protectorate over the Somál Coast to the Jub river. … The British Protectorate on the Somál Coast facing Aden, now extends from the Italian frontier at Ras Hafún to Ras Jibute (43° 15' East longitude). … The activity of France in her Senegambian province, … during the last hundred years … has finally resulted in a considerable expansion of her territory. … The French have established a claim over the country intervening between our Gold Coast Colony and Liberia. {19} A more precise delimitation of the frontier between Sierra Leone and Liberia resulted from the treaties signed at Monrovia on the 11th of November, 1887. In 1888 Portugal withdrew all rights over Dehomé. … Recently, a French sphere of influence has been instituted over the whole of the Saharan regions between Algeria and Senegambia. … Declarations were exchanged (5th August 1890) between [France and Great Britain] with the following results: France became a consenting party to the Anglo-German Convention of 1st July 1890. (2.) Great Britain recognised a French sphere of influence over Madagascar. … And (3) Great Britain recognised the sphere of influence of France to the south of her Mediterranean possessions, up to a line from Say on the Niger to Barrua on Lake Tsad, drawn in such a manner as to comprise in the sphere of action of the British Niger Company all that fairly belongs to the kingdom of Sokoto." The Anglo-German Convention of July, 1890, already referred to, established by its main provisions the following definitions of territory: "The Anglo-German frontier in East Africa, which, by the Convention of 1886, ended at a point on the eastern shore of the Victoria Nyanza was continued on the same latitude across the lake to the confines of the Congo Independent State; but, on the western side of the lake, this frontier was, if necessary, to be deflected to the south, in order to include Mount M'fumbiro within the British sphere. … Treaties in that district were made on behalf of the British East Africa Company by Mr. Stanley, on his return (May 1889) from the relief of Emin Pasha. … (2.) The southern boundary of the German sphere of influence in East Africa was recognised as that originally drawn to a point on the eastern shore of Lake Nyassa, whence it was continued by the eastern, northern, and western shores of the lake to the northern bank of the mouth of the River Songwé. From this point the Anglo-German frontier was continued to Lake Tanganika, in such a manner as to leave the Stevenson Road within the British sphere. (3.) The Northern frontier of British East Africa was defined by the Jub River and the conterminous boundary of the Italian sphere of influence in Galla-land and Abyssinia up to the confines of Egypt; in the west, by the Congo State and the Congo-Nile watershed. (4.) Germany withdrew, in favor of Britain, her Protectorate over Vitu and her claims to all territories on the mainland to the north of the River Tana, as also over the islands of Patta and Manda. (5.) In South-West Africa, the Anglo-German frontier, originally fixed up to 22 south latitude, was confirmed; but from this point the boundary-line was drawn in such a manner eastward and northward as to give Germany free access to the Zambezi by the Chobe River. (6.) The Anglo-German frontier between Togo and Gold Coast Colony was fixed, and that between the Camarons and the British Niger Territories was provisionally adjusted. (7.) The Free-trade zone, defined by the Act of Berlin (1885) was recognised as applicable to the present arrangement between Britain and Germany. (8.) A British Protectorate was recognised over the dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar within the British coastal zone and over the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba. Britain, however, undertook to use her influence to secure (what have since been acquired) corresponding advantages for Germany within the German coastal zone and over the island of Mafia. Finally (9), the island of Heligoland, in the North Sea, was ceded by Britain to Germany." By a treaty concluded in June, 1891, between Great Britain and Portugal, "Great Britain acquired a broad central sphere of influence for the expansion of her possessions in South Africa northward to and beyond the Zambezi, along a path which provides for the uninterrupted passage of British goods and British enterprise, up to the confines of the Congo Independent State and German East Africa. … Portugal, on the East Coast secured the Lower Zambezi from Zumbo, and the Lower Shiré from the Ruo Confluence, the entire Hinterland of Mosambique up to Lake Nyassa and the Hinterland of Sofala to the confines of the South African Republic and the Matabele kingdom. On the West Coast, Portugal received the entire Hinterland behind her provinces in Lower Guinea, up to the confines of the Congo Independent State, and the upper course of the Zambezi. … On May 25th 1891 a Convention was signed at Lisbon, which has put an end to the dispute between Portugal and the Congo Independent State as to the possession of Lunda. Roughly speaking, the country was equally divided between the disputants. … Lord Salisbury, in his negotiations with Germany and Portugal, very wisely upheld the principle of free-trade which was laid down by the Act of Berlin, 1885, in regard to the free transit of goods through territories in which two or more powers are indirectly interested."

A. S. White, The Development of Africa, Second Edition, Revised, 1892.

ALSO IN: J. S. Keltie, The Partition of Africa, chapter 12-23.

See, also, SOUTH AFRICA, and UGANDA.

AFRICA: The inhabiting races.

The indigenous races of Africa are considered to be four in number, namely: the Negroes proper, who occupy a central zone, stretching from the Atlantic to the Egyptian Sudan, and who comprise an enormous number of diverse tribes; the Fulahs (with whom the Nubians are associated) settled mainly between Lake Chad and the Niger; the Bantus, who occupy the whole South, except its extremity, and the Hottentots who are in that extreme southern region. Some anthropologists include with the Hottentots the Bosjesmans or Bushmen. The Kafirs and Bechuanas are Bantu tribes. The North and Northeast are occupied by Semitic and Hamitic races, the latter including Abyssinians and Gallas.

A. H. Keane, The African Races (Stanford's Compendium: Africa, appendix).

ALSO IN: R. Brown, The Races of Mankind, volumes 2-3.

R. N. Cust, Sketch of the Modern Languages of Africa.

See, also, SOUTH AFRICA.

—————AFRICA: End—————

AGA MOHAMMED KHAN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1795-1797.


AGAPETUS II., Pope, A. D. 946-956.



AGATHO, Pope, A. D. 678-682.

AGATHOCLES, The tyranny of.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.





The youths and young men of ancient Crete were publicly trained and disciplined in divisions or companies, each of which was called an Agela, and its leader or director the Agelatas.

G. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State, part 3, chapter 2.


The royal escort of Alexander the Great.

AGEN, Origin of.





"Rome was always making fresh acquisitions of territory in her early history. … Large tracts of country became Roman land, the property of the Roman state, or public domain (ager publicus), as the Romans called it. The condition of this land, the use to which it was applied, and the disputes which it caused between the two orders at Rome, are among the most curious and perplexing questions in Roman history. … That part of newly acquired territory which was neither sold nor given remained public property, and it was occupied, according to the Roman term, by private persons, in whose hands it was a Possessio. Hyginus and Siculus Flaccus represent this occupation as being made without any order. Every Roman took what he could, and more than he could use profitably. … We should be more inclined to believe that this public land was occupied under some regulations, in order to prevent disputes; but if such regulations existed we know nothing about them. There was no survey made of the public land which was from time to time acquired, but there were certainly general boundaries fixed for the purpose of determining what had become public property. The lands which were sold and given were of necessity surveyed and fixed by boundaries. … There is no direct evidence that any payments to the state were originally made by the Possessors. It is certain, however, that at some early time such payments were made, or, at least, were due to the state."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, chapter 11.




See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

AGHA MOHAMMED KHAN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1795-1797.



AGHRIM, OR AUGHRIM, Battle of (A. D. 1691).

See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

AGILULPHUS, King of the Lombards. A. D. 590-616.

AGINCOURT, Battle of (1415).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1415.

   Modern Agen.


AGNADEL, Battle of (1509).

See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.






The public discipline enforced in ancient Sparta; the ordinances attributed to Lycurgus, for the training of the young and for the regulating of the lives of citizens.

G. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State, part 3, chapter 1.


The market-place of an ancient Greek city was, also, the centre of its political life. "Like the gymnasium, and even earlier than this, it grew into architectural splendour with the increasing culture of the Greeks. In maritime cities it generally lay near the sea; in inland places at the foot of the hill which carried the old feudal castle. Being the oldest part of the city, it naturally became the focus not only of commercial, but also of religious and political life. Here even in Homer's time the citizens assembled in consultation, for which purpose it was supplied with seats; here were the oldest sanctuaries; here were celebrated the first festive games; here centred the roads on which the intercommunication, both religious and commercial, with neighbouring cities and states was carried on; from here started the processions which continually passed between holy places of kindred origin, though locally separated. Although originally all public transactions were carried on in these market-places, special local arrangements for contracting public business soon became necessary in large cities. At Athens, for instance, the gently rising ground of the Philopappos hill, called Pnyx, touching the Agora, was used for political consultations, while most likely, about the time of the Pisistratides, the market of Kerameikos, the oldest seat of Attic industry (lying between the foot of the Akropolis, the Areopagos and the hill of Theseus), became the agora proper, i. e., the centre of Athenian commerce. … The description by Vitruvius of an agora evidently refers to the splendid structures of post-Alexandrine times. According to him it was quadrangular in size [? shape] and surrounded by wide double colonades. The numerous columns carried architraves of common stone or of marble, and on the roofs of the porticoes were galleries for walking purposes. This, of course, does not apply to all marketplaces, even of later date; but, upon the whole, the remaining specimens agree with the description of Vitruvius."

E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks and Romans, translated by Hueffer, part 1, section 26.

In the Homeric time, the general assembly of freemen was called the Agora.

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 20.




"Great mistakes formerly prevailed on the nature of the Roman laws familiarly termed Agrarian. It was supposed that by these laws all land was declared common property, and that at certain intervals of time the state resumed possession and made a fresh distribution to all citizens, rich and poor. It is needless to make any remarks on the nature and consequences of such a law; sufficient it will be to say, what is now known to all, that at Rome such laws never existed, never were thought of. The lands which were to be distributed by Agrarian laws were not private property, but the property of the state. They were, originally, those public lands which had been the domain of the kings, and which were increased whenever any City or people was conquered by the Romans; because it was an Italian practice to confiscate the lands of the conquered, in whole or in part."

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 8.

See ROME: B. C. 376, and B. C. 133-121.



"Between the Rhine and the Upper Danube there intervenes a triangular tract of land, the apex of which touches the confines of Switzerland at Basel; thus separating, as with an enormous wedge, the provinces of Gaul and Vindelicia, and presenting at its base no natural line of defence from one river to the other. This tract was, however, occupied, for the most part, by forests, and if it broke the line of the Roman defences, it might at least be considered impenetrable to an enemy. Abandoned by the warlike and predatory tribes of Germany, it was seized by wandering immigrants from Gaul, many of them Roman adventurers, before whom the original inhabitants, the Marcomanni, or men of the frontier, seem to have retreated eastward beyond the Hercynian forest. The intruders claimed or solicited Roman protection, and offered in return a tribute from the produce of the soil, whence the district itself came to be known by the title of the Agri Decumates, or Tithed Land. It was not, however, officially connected with any province of the Empire, nor was any attempt made to provide for its permanent security, till a period much later than that on which we are now engaged [the period of Augustus]."

C. Merivale, History of the Roman, chapter 36..

   "Wurtemburg, Baden and Hohenzollern coincide with the Agri
   Decumates of the Roman writers."

R G. Latham, Ethnology of Europe, chapter 8.

See, also, ALEMANNI, and SUEVI.


See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.


Acragas, or Agrigentum, one of the youngest of the Greek colonies in Sicily, founded about B. C. 582 by the older colony of Gela, became one of the largest and most splendid cities of the age, in the fifth century B. C., as is testified by its ruins to this day. It was the scene of the notorious tyranny of Phalaris, as well as that of Theron. Agrigentum was destroyed by the Carthagenians, B. C. 405, and rebuilt by Timoleon, but never recovered its former importance and grandeur.

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


Agrigentum was destroyed by the Carthagenians in 406 B. C.

See SICILY: B. C. 409-405.

   Rebuilt by Timoleon, it was the scene of a great defeat of the
   Carthagenians by the Romans, in 262 B. C.



See ROME: A. D. 47-54, and 54-64.

AHMED KHEL, Battle of (1880).

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.




See GREECE: B. C. 405.

AIGUILLON, Siege of.

A notable siege in the "Hundred Years' War," A. D. 1346. An English garrison under the famous knight, Sir Walter Manny, held the great fortress of Aiguillon, near the confluence of the Garonne and the Lot, against a formidable French army.

J. Froissart, Chronicles, volume 1, book 1, chapter 120.

AIX, Origin of.


   The Capital of Charlemagne.

The favorite residence and one of the two capitals of Charlemagne was the city which the Germans call Aachen and the French have named Aix-la-Chapelle. "He ravished the ruins of the ancient world to restore the monumental arts. A new Rome arose in the depths of the forests of Austrasia—palaces, gates, bridges, baths, galleries, theatres, churches,—for the erection of which the mosaics and marbles of Italy were laid under tribute, and workmen summoned from all parts of Europe. It was there that an extensive library was gathered, there that the school of the palace was made permanent, there that foreign envoys were pompously welcomed, there that the monarch perfected his plans for the introduction of Roman letters and the improvement of music."

P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul, book 4, chapter 17.

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, Treaty of (A. D. 803).

See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, Treaty of (A. D. 1668).


   The Congress and Treaty which ended the War of the Austrian
   Succession (1748).

   The War of the Austrian Succession, which raged in Europe, and
   on the ocean, and in India and America, from 1740 to 1748 (see
   AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, 1740-1741, and after), was brought
   to an end in the latter year by a Congress of all the
   belligerents which met at Aix-la-Chapelle, in April, and which
   concluded its labors on the 18th of October following. "The
   influence of England and Holland … forced the peace upon
   Austria and Sardinia, though both were bitterly aggrieved by
   its conditions. France agreed to restore every conquest she
   had made during the war, to abandon the cause of the Stuarts,
   and expel the Pretender from her soil; to demolish, in
   accordance with earlier treaties, the fortifications of
   Dunkirk on the side of the sea, while retaining those on the
   side of the land, and to retire from the conquest without
   acquiring any fresh territory or any pecuniary compensation.
   England in like manner restored the few conquests she had
   made, and submitted to the somewhat humiliating condition of
   sending hostages to Paris as a security for the restoration of
   Cape Breton. … The disputed boundary between Canada and Nova
   Scotia, which had been a source of constant difficulty with
   France, was left altogether undefined. The Assiento treaty for
   trade with the Spanish colonies was confirmed for the four
   years it had still to run; but no real compensation was
   obtained for a war expenditure which is said to have exceeded
   sixty-four millions, and which had raised the funded and
   unfunded debt to more than seventy-eight millions. Of the
   other Powers, Holland, Genoa, and the little state of Modena
   retained their territory as before the war, and Genoa remained
   mistress of the Duchy of Finale, which had been ceded to the king
   of Sardinia by the Treaty of Worms, and which it had been a
   main object of his later policy to secure. Austria obtained a
   recognition of the election of the Emperor, a general
   guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction, and the restoration of
   everything she had lost in the Netherlands, but she gained no
   additional territory. She was compelled to confirm the cession
   of Silesia and Glatz to Prussia, to abandon her Italian
   conquests, and even to cede a considerable part of her former
   Italian dominions. To the bitter indignation of Maria Theresa,
   the Duchies of Parma, Placentia and Guastella passed to Don
   Philip of Spain, to revert, however, to their former
   possessors if Don Philip mounted the Spanish throne, or died
   without male issue. The King of Sardinia also obtained from
   Austria the territorial cessions enumerated In the Treaty of
   Worms [see ITALY: A. D. 1743], with the important exceptions
   of Placentia, which passed to Don Philip, and of Finale, which
   remained with the Genoese.
   For the loss of these he obtained no compensation. Frederick
   [the Great, of Prussia] obtained a general guarantee for the
   possession of his newly acquired territory, and a long list of
   old treaties was formally confirmed. Thus small were the
   changes effected in Europe by so much bloodshed and treachery,
   by nearly nine years of wasteful and desolating war. The
   design of the dismemberment of Austria had failed, but no
   vexed questions had been set at rest. … Of all the ambitious
   projects that had been conceived during the war, that of
   Frederick alone was substantially realized."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England, 18th Century, chapter 3.

"Thus ended the War of the Austrian succession. In its origin and its motives one of the most wicked of all the many conflicts which ambition and perfidy have provoked in Europe, it excites a peculiarly mournful interest by the gross inequality in the rewards and penalties which fortune assigned to the leading actors. Prussia, Spain and Sardinia were all endowed out of the estates of the house of Hapsburg. But the electoral house of Bavaria, the most sincere and the most deserving of all the claimants to that vast inheritance, not only received no increase of territory, but even nearly lost its own patrimonial possessions. … The most trying problem is still that offered by the misfortunes of the Queen of Hungary [Maria Theresa]. … The verdict of history, as expressed by the public opinion, and by the vast majority of writers, in every country except Prussia, upholds the justice of the queen's cause and condemns the coalition that was formed against her."

H. Tuttle, History of Prussia, 1745-1756, chapter 2.

ALSO IN W. Russell, History of Modern Europe, part 2, letter 30.

W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria, chapter 108 (volume 3).

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

AIZNADIN, Battle of (A. D. 634).



"Of the Akarnanian League, formed by one of the least important, but at the same time one of the most estimable peoples in Greece … our knowledge is only fragmentary. The boundaries of Akarnania fluctuated, but we always find the people spoken of as a political whole. … Thucydides speaks, by implication at least, of the Akarnanian League as an institution of old standing in his time. The Akarnanians had, in early times, occupied the hill of Olpai as a place for judicial proceedings common to the whole nation. Thus the supreme court of the Akarnanian Union held its sittings, not in a town, but in a mountain fortress. But in Thucydides' own time Stratos had attained its position as the greatest city of Akarnania, and probably the federal assemblies were already held there. … Of the constitution of the League we know but little. Ambassadors were sent by the federal body, and probably, just as in the Achaian League, it would have been held to be a breach of the federal tie if any single city had entered on diplomatic intercourse with other powers. As in Achaia, too, there stood at the head of the League a General with high authority. … The existence of coins bearing the name of the whole Akarnanian nation shows that there was unity enough to admit of a federal coinage, though coins of particular cities also occur."

E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government, chapter 4, section 1.

AKARNANIANS (Acarnanians).

The Akarnanians formed "a link of transition" between the ancient Greeks and their barbarous or non-Hellenic neighbours in the Epirus and beyond. "They occupied the territory between the river Acheloûs, the Ionian sea and the Ambrakian gulf: they were Greeks and admitted as such to contend at the Pan-Hellenic games, yet they were also closely connected with the Amphilochi and Agræi, who were not Greeks. In manners, sentiments and intelligence, they were half-Hellenic and half-Epirotic,—like the Ætolians and the Ozolian Lokrians. Even down to the time of Thucydides, these nations were subdivided into numerous petty communities, lived in unfortified villages, were frequently in the habit of plundering each other, and never permitted themselves to be unarmed. … Notwithstanding this state of disunion and insecurity, however, the Akarnanians maintained a loose political league among themselves. … The Akarnanians appear to have produced many prophets. They traced up their mythical ancestry, as well as that of their neighbours the Amphilochians, to the most renowned prophetic family among the Grecian heroes,—Amphiaraus, with his sons Alkmæôn and Ampilochus: Akarnan, the eponymous hero of the nation, and other eponymous heroes of the separate towns, were supposed to be the sons of Alkmæôn. They are spoken of, together with the Ætolians, as mere rude shepherds, by the lyric poet Alkman, and so they seem to have continued with little alteration until the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, when we hear of them, for the first time, as allies of Athens and as bitter enemies of the Corinthian colonies on their coast. The contact of those colonies, however, and the large spread of Akarnanian accessible coast, could not fail to produce some effect in socializing and improving the people. And it is probable that this effect would have been more sensibly felt, had not the Akarnanians been kept back by the fatal neighbourhood of the Ætolians, with whom they were in perpetual feud,—a people the most unprincipled and unimprovable of all who bore the Hellenic name, and whose habitual faithlessness stood in marked contrast with the rectitude and steadfastness of the Akarnanian character."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 24.

AKBAR (called The Great), Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India,
A. D. 1556-1605.

AKHALZIKH, Siege and capture of (1828).

See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.







   The Aboriginal Inhabitants.


ALABAMA: A. D. 1539-1542.
   Traversed by Hernando de Soto.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1629.
   Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1663.
   Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk, Shaftesbury, and others.

See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.


ALABAMA: A. D. 1702-1711.
   French occupation and first settlement.
   The founding of Mobile.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1732.
   Mostly embraced in the new province of Georgia.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1763.
   Cession and delivery to Great Britain.
   Partly embraced in West Florida.

      and FLORIDA: A. D. 1763:
      and NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1779-1781.
   Reconquest of West Florida by the Spaniards.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1783.
   Mostly covered by the English cession to the United States.


ALABAMA: A. D. 1783-1787.
   Partly in dispute with Spain.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1798-1804.
   All but the West Florida District embraced in Mississippi Territory.

See MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1798-1804.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1803.
   Portion acquired by the Louisiana purchase.

See LOUISIANA: A.D. 1798-1803.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1813.
   Possession of Mobile and West Florida taken from the Spaniards.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1813-1814.
   The Creek War.


ALABAMA: A. D. 1817-1819.
   Organized as a Territory.
   Constituted a State, and admitted to the Union.

"By an act of Congress dated March 1, 1817, Mississippi Territory was divided. Another act, bearing the date March 3, thereafter, organized the western [? eastern] portion into a Territory, to be known as Alabama, and with the boundaries as they now exist. … By an act approved March 2, 1819, congress authorized the inhabitants of the Territory of Alabama to form a state constitution, 'and that said Territory, when formed into a State, shall be admitted into the Union upon the same footing as the original States.' … The joint resolution of congress admitting Alabama into the Union was approved by President Monroe, December 14, 1819."

W. Brewer, Alabama, chapter 5.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1861 (January).
   Secession from the Union.


ALABAMA: A. D. 1862.
   General Mitchell's Expedition.


ALABAMA: A. D. 1864 (August).
   The Battle of Mobile Bay.
   Capture of Confederate forts and fleet.


ALABAMA: A. D. 1865 (March-April).
   The Fall of Mobile.
   Wilson's Raid.
   End of the Rebellion.


ALABAMA: A. D. 1865-1868.

      A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.

—————ALABAMA: End—————

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1861-1862.
   In their Origin.
   The Earlier Confederate cruisers.
   Precursors of the Alabama.

The commissioning of privateers, and of more officially commanded cruisers, in the American civil war, by the government of the Southern Confederacy, was begun early in the progress of the movement of rebellion, pursuant to a proclamation issued by Jefferson Davis on the 17th of April, 1861. "Before the close of July, 1861, more than 20 of those depredators were afloat, and had captured millions of property belonging to American citizens. The most formidable and notorious of the sea-going ships of this character, were the Nashville, Captain R. B. Pegram, a Virginian, who had abandoned his flag, and the Sumter [a regularly commissioned war vessel], Captain Raphael Semmes. The former was a side-wheel steamer, carried a crew of eighty men, and was armed with two long 12-pounder rifled cannon. Her career was short, but quite successful. She was finally destroyed by the Montauk, Captain Worden, in the Ogeechee River. The career of the Sumter, which had been a New Orleans and Havana packet steamer named Marquis de Habana, was also short, but much more active and destructive. She had a crew of sixty-five men and twenty-five marines, and was heavily armed. She ran the blockade at the mouth of the Mississippi River on the 30th of June, and was pursued some distance by the Brooklyn. She ran among the West India islands and on the Spanish Main, and soon made prizes of many vessels bearing the American flag. She was everywhere received in British Colonial ports with great favor, and was afforded every facility for her piratical operations. She became the terror of the American merchant service, and everywhere eluded National vessels of war sent out in pursuit of her. At length she crossed the ocean, and at the close of 1861 was compelled to seek shelter under British guns at Gibraltar, where she was watched by the Tuscarora. Early in the year 1862 she was sold, and thus ended her piratical career. Encouraged by the practical friendship of the British evinced for these corsairs, and the substantial aid they were receiving from British subjects in various ways, especially through blockade-runners, the conspirators determined to procure from those friends some powerful piratical craft, and made arrangements for the purchase and construction of vessels for that purpose. Mr. Laird, a ship-builder at Liverpool and member of the British Parliament, was the largest contractor in the business, and, in defiance of every obstacle, succeeded in getting pirate ships to sea. The first of these ships that went to sea was the Oreto, ostensibly built for a house in Palermo, Sicily. Mr. Adams, the American minister in London, was so well satisfied from information received that she was designed for the Confederates, that he called the attention of the British government to the matter so early as the 18th of February, 1862. But nothing effective was done, and she was completed and allowed to depart from British waters. She went first to Nassau, and on the 4th of September suddenly appeared off Mobile harbor, flying the British flag and pennants. The blockading squadron there was in charge of Commander George H. Preble, who had been specially instructed not to give offense to foreign nations while enforcing the blockade. He believed the Oreto to be a British vessel, and while deliberating a few minutes as to what he should do, she passed out of range of his guns, and entered the harbor with a rich freight. For his seeming remissness Commander Preble was summarily dismissed from the service without a hearing—an act which subsequent events seemed to show was cruel injustice. Late in December the Oreto escaped from Mobile, fully armed for a piratical cruise, under the command of John Newland Maffit. … The name of the Oreto was changed to that of Florida."

B. J. Lossing, Field Book of the Civil War, volume 2, chapter 21.


The fate of the Florida is related below—A. D. 1862-1865.

R. Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat, chapters 9-26.

      ALSO IN
      J. Davis,
      Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government,
      chapters 30-31 (volume 2).

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1864.
   The Alabama, her career and her fate.

"The Alabama [the second cruiser built in England for the Confederates] … is thus described by Semmes, her commander: 'She was of about 900 tons burden, 230 feet in length, 32 feet in breadth, 20 feet in depth, and drew, when provisioned and coaled for cruise, 15 feet of water. She was barkentine-rigged, with long lower masts, which enabled her to carry large fore and aft sails, as jibs and try-sails. … Her engine was of 300 horse-power, and she had attached an apparatus for condensing from the vapor of sea-water all the fresh water that her crew might require. … Her armament consisted of eight guns.' … The Alabama was built and, from the outset, was 'intended for a Confederate vessel of war.' The contract for her construction was signed by Captain Bullock on the one part and Messrs. Laird on the other.' … On the 15th of May [1862] she was launched under the name of the 290. Her officers were in England awaiting her completion, and were paid their salaries 'monthly, about the first of the month, at Fraser, Trenholm & Co.'s office in Liverpool.' The purpose for which this vessel was being constructed was notorious in Liverpool. Before she was launched she became an object of suspicion with the Consul of the United States at that port, and she was the subject of constant correspondence on his part with his Government and with Mr. Adams. … Early in the history of this cruiser the point was taken by the British authorities—a point maintained throughout the struggle—that they would originate nothing themselves for the maintenance and performance of their international duties, and that they would listen to no representations from the officials of the United States which did not furnish technical evidence for a criminal prosecution under the Foreign Enlistment Act. … At last Mr. Dudley [the Consul of the United States at Liverpool] succeeded in finding the desired proof. On the 21st day of July, he laid it in the form of affidavits before the Collector at Liverpool in compliance with the intimations which Mr. Adams had received from Earl Russell. These affidavits were on the same day transmitted by the Collector to the Board of Customs at London, with a request for instructions by telegraph, as the ship appeared to be ready for sea and might leave any hour. … It … appears that notwithstanding this official information from the Collector, the papers were not considered by the law advisers until the 28th, and that the case appeared to them to be so clear that they gave their advice upon it that evening. Under these circumstances, the delay of eight days after the 21st in the order for the detention of the vessel was, in the opinion of the United States, gross negligence on the part of Her Majesty's Government. On the 29th the Secretary of the Commission of the Customs received a telegram from Liverpool saying that the vessel 290 came out of dock last night, and left the port this morning.' … After leaving the dock she proceeded slowly down the Mersey.' Both the Lairds were on board, and also Bullock. … The 290 slowly steamed on to Moelfra Bay, on the coast of Anglesey, where she remained 'all that night, all the next day, and the next night.' No effort was made to seize her. … When the Alabama left Moelfra Bay her crew numbered about 90 men. She ran part way down the Irish Channel, then round the north coast of Ireland, only stopping near the Giant's Causeway. She then made for Terceira, one of the Azores, which she reached on the 10th of August. On 18th of August, while she was at Terceira, a sail was observed making for the anchorage. It proved to be the 'Agrippina of London, Captain McQueen, having on board six guns, with ammunition, coals, stores, &c., for the Alabama.' Preparations were immediately made to transfer this important cargo. On the afternoon of the 20th, while employed discharging the bark, the screw-steamer Bahama, Captain Tessier (the same that had taken the armament to the Florida, whose insurgent ownership and character were well known in Liverpool), arrived, 'having on board Commander Raphael Semmes and officers of the Confederate States steamer Sumter.' There were also taken from this steamer two 32-pounders and some stores, which occupied all the remainder of that day and a part of the next. The 22d and 23d of August were taken up in transferring coal from the Agrippina to the Alabama. It was not until Sunday (the 24th) that the insurgents' flag was hoisted. Bullock and those who were not going in the 290 went back to the Bahama, and the Alabama, now first known under that name, went off with '26 officers and 85 men.'"

      The Case of the United States before the Tribunal of
      Arbitration at Geneva (42d Congress, 2d Session,
      Senate Ex. Doc., No. 31, pages 146-151).

   The Alabama "arrived at Porto Praya on the 19th August.
   Shortly thereafter Capt. Raphael Semmes assumed command.
   Hoisting the Confederate flag, she cruised and captured
   several vessels in the vicinity of Flores. Cruising to the
   westward, and making several captures, she approached within
   200 miles of New York; thence going southward, arrived, on the
   18th November, at Port Royal, Martinique. On the night of the
   19th she escaped from the harbour and the Federal steamer San
   Jacinto, and on the 20th November was at Blanquilla. On the
   7th December she captured the steamer Ariel in the passage
   between Cuba and St. Domingo. On January 11th, 1863, she sunk
   the Federal gunboat Hatteras off Galveston, and on the 30th
   arrived at Jamaica. Cruising to the eastward, and making many
   captures, she arrived on the 10th April, at Fernando de
   Noronha, 'and on the 11th May at Bahia, where, on the 13th,
   she was joined by the Confederate steamer Georgia. Cruising
   near the line, thence southward towards the Cape of Good Hope,
   numerous captures were made. On the 29th July she anchored in
   Saldanha Bay, South Africa, and near there on the 5th August,
   was joined by the Confederate bark Tuscaloosa, Commander Low.
   In September, 1863, she was at St. Simon's Bay, and in October
   was in the Straits of Sunda, and up to January 20, 1864,
   cruised in the Bay of Bengal and vicinity, visiting
   Singapore, and making a number of very valuable captures,
   including the Highlander, Sonora, etc.
   From this point she cruised on her homeward track via Cape of
   Good Hope, capturing the bark Tycoon and ship Rockingham, and
   arrived at Cherbourg, France, in June, 1864, where she
   repaired. A Federal steamer, the Kearsarge, was lying off the
   harbour. Capt. Semmes might easily have evaded this enemy; the
   business of his vessel was that of a privateer; and her value
   to the Confederacy was out of all comparison with a single
   vessel of the enemy. … But Capt. Semmes had been twitted
   with the name of 'pirate;' and he was easily persuaded to
   attempt an éclat for the Southern Confederacy by a naval fight
   within sight of the French coast, which contest, it was
   calculated, would prove the Alabama a legitimate war vessel,
   and give such an exhibition of Confederate belligerency as
   possibly to revive the question of 'recognition' in Paris and
   London. These were the secret motives of the gratuitous fight
   with which Capt. Semmes obliged the enemy off the port of
   Cherbourg. The Alabama carried one 7-inch Blakely rifled gun,
   one 8-inch smooth-bore pivot gun, and six 32-pounders,
   smooth-bore, in broadside; the Kearsarge carried four
   broadside 32-pounders, two 11-inch and one 28-pound rifle. The
   two vessels were thus about equal in match and armament; and
   their tonnage was about the same."

E. A. Pollard, The Lost Cause, page 549.

Captain Winslow, commanding the United States Steamer Kearsarge, in a report to the Secretary of the Navy written on the afternoon of the day of his battle with the Alabama, June 19, 1864, said: "I have the honor to inform the department that the day subsequent to the arrival of the Kearsarge off this port, on the 24th [14th] instant, I received a note from Captain Semmes, begging that the Kearsarge would not depart, as he intended to fight her, and would delay her but a day or two. According to this notice, the Alabama left the port of Cherbourg this morning at about half past nine o'clock. At twenty minutes past ten A. M., we discovered her steering towards us. Fearing the question of jurisdiction might arise, we steamed to sea until a distance of six or seven miles was attained from the Cherbourg break-water, when we rounded to and commenced steaming for the Alabama. As we approached her, within about 1,200 yards, she opened fire, we receiving two or three broadsides before a shot was returned. The action continued, the respective steamers making a circle round and round at a distance of about 900 yards from each other. At the expiration of an hour the Alabama struck, going down in about twenty minutes afterward, carrying many persons with her." In a report two days later, Captain Winslow gave the following particulars: "Toward the close of the action between the Alabama and this vessel, all available sail was made on the former for the purpose of again reaching Cherbourg. When the object was apparent, the Kearsarge was steered across the bow of the Alabama for a raking fire; but before reaching this point the Alabama struck. Uncertain whether Captain Semmes was not using some ruse, the Kearsarge was stopped. It was seen, shortly afterward, that the Alabama was lowering her boats, and an officer came alongside in one of them to say that they had surrendered, and were fast sinking, and begging that boats would be despatched immediately for saving life. The two boats not disabled were at once lowered, and as it was apparent the Alabama was settling, this officer was permitted to leave in his boat to afford assistance. An English yacht, the Deerhound, had approached near the Kearsarge at this time, when I hailed and begged the commander to run down to the Alabama, as she was fast sinking, and we had but two boats, and assist in picking up the men. He answered affirmatively, and steamed toward the Alabama, but the latter sank almost immediately. The Deerhound, however, sent her boats and was actively engaged, aided by several others which had come from shore.' These boats were busy in bringing the wounded and others to the Kearsarge; whom we were trying to make as comfortable as possible, when it was reported to me that the Deerhound was moving off. I could not believe that the commander of that vessel could be guilty of so disgraceful an act as taking our prisoners off, and therefore took no means to prevent it, but continued to keep our boats at work rescuing the men in the water. I am sorry to say that I was mistaken. The Deerhound made off with Captain Semmes and others, and also the very officer who had come on board to surrender."—In a still later report Captain Winslow gave the following facts: "The fire of the Alabama, although it is stated she discharged 370 or more shell and shot, was not of serious damage to the Kearsarge. Some 13 or 14 of these had taken effect in and about the hull, and 16 or 17 about the masts and rigging. The casualties were small, only three persons having been wounded. … The fire of the Kearsarge, although only 173 projectiles had been discharged, according to the prisoners' accounts, was terrific. One shot alone had killed and wounded 18 men, and disabled a gun. Another had entered the coal-bunkers, exploding, and completely blocking up the engine room; and Captain Semmes states that shot and shell had taken effect in the sides of his vessel, tearing large holes by explosion, and his men were everywhere knocked down."

Rebellion Record, volume 9, pages 221-225.

      ALSO IN
      J. R. Soley,
      The Blockade and the Cruisers (The Navy in the Civil War;
      volume 1, chapter 7.

      J. R. Soley, J. McI. Kell and J. M. Browne,
      The Confederate Cruisers (Battles and Leaders,
      volume 3.

      R. Semmes,
      Memoirs of Service Afloat,
      chapters 29-55.

      J. D. Bullock,
      Secret Service of the Confederate States in Europe,
      volume 1, chapter 5.

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1865.
   Other Confederate cruisers.

"A score of other Confederate cruisers roamed the seas, to prey upon United States commerce, but none of them became quite so famous as the Sumter and the Alabama. They included the Shenandoah, which made 38 captures, the Florida, which made 36, the Tallahassee, which made 27, the Tacony, which made 15, and the Georgia, which made 10. The Florida was captured in the harbor of Bahia, Brazil, in October, 1864, by a United States man-of·war [the Wachusett: commander Collins], in violation of the neutrality of the port. For this the United States Government apologized to Brazil and ordered the restoration of the Florida to the harbor where she was captured. But in Hampton Roads she met with an accident and sank. It was generally believed that the apparent accident was contrived with the connivance, if not by direct order, of the Government. Most of these cruisers were built in British shipyards."

R. Johnson, Short History of the War of Secession, chapter 24.


The last of the destroyers of American commerce, the Shenandoah, was a British merchant ship—the Sea King—built for the Bombay trade, but purchased by the Confederate agent, Captain Bullock, armed with six guns, and commissioned (October, 1865) under her new name. In June, 1865, the Shenandoah, after a voyage to Australia, in the course of which she destroyed a dozen merchant ships, made her appearance in the Northern Sea, near Behring Strait, where she fell in with the New Bedford whaling fleet. "In the course of one week, from the 21st to the 28th, twenty-five whalers were captured, of which four were ransomed, and the remaining 21 were burned. The loss on these 21 whalers was estimated at upwards of $3,000,000, and considering that it occurred … two months after the Confederacy had virtually passed out of existence, it may be characterized as the most useless act of hostility that occurred during the whole war." The captain of the Shenandoah had news on the 23d of the fall of Richmond; yet after that time he destroyed 15 vessels. On his way southward he received information, August 2d, of the final collapse of the Confederacy. He then sailed for Liverpool, and surrendered his vessel to the British Government, which delivered her to the United States.

      J. R. Soley,
      The Confederate Cruisers
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1869.
   Definition of the indemnity claims of the United States
   against Great Britain.
   First stages of the Negotiation.
   The rejected Johnson-Clarendon Treaty.

"A review of the history of the negotiations between the two Governments prior to the correspondence between Sir Edward Thornton and Mr. Fish, will show … what was intended by these words, 'generically known as the Alabama Claims,' used on each side in that correspondence. The correspondence between the two Governments was opened by Mr. Adams on the 20th of November, 1862 (less than four months after the escape of the Alabama), in a note to Earl Russell, written under instructions from the Government of the United States. In this note Mr. Adams submitted evidence of the acts of the Alabama, and stated: 'I have the honor to inform Your Lordship of the directions which I have received from my Government to solicit redress for the national and private injuries thus sustained.' … Lord Russell met this notice on the 19th of December, 1862, by a denial of any liability for any injuries growing out of the acts of the Alabama. … As new losses from time to time were suffered by individuals during the war, they were brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government, and were lodged with the national and individual claims already preferred; but argumentative discussion on the issues involved was by common consent deferred. … The fact that the first claim preferred grew out of the acts of the Alabama explains how it was that all the claims growing out of the acts of all the vessels came to be 'generically known as the Alabama claims.' On the 7th of April, 1865, the war being virtually over, Mr. Adams renewed the discussion. He transmitted to Earl Russell an official report showing the number and tonnage of American vessels transferred to the British flag during the war. He said: 'The United States commerce is rapidly vanishing from the face of the ocean, and that of Great Britain is multiplying in nearly the same ratio.' 'This process is going on by reason of the action of British subjects in cooperation with emissaries of the insurgents, who have supplied from the ports of Her Majesty's Kingdom all the materials, such as vessels, armament, supplies, and men, indispensable to the effective prosecution of this result on the ocean.' … He stated that he 'was under the painful necessity of announcing that his Government cannot avoid entailing upon the Government of Great Britain the responsibility for this damage.' Lord Russell … said in reply, 'I can never admit that the duties of Great Britain toward the United States are to be measured by the losses which the trade and commerce of the United States have sustained. … Referring to the offer of arbitration, made on the 26th day of October, 1863, Lord Russell, in the same note, said: 'Her Majesty's Government must decline either to make reparation and compensation for the captures made by the Alabama, or to refer the question to any foreign State.' This terminated the first stage of the negotiations between the two Governments. … In the summer of 1866 a change of Ministry took place in England, and Lord Stanley became Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the place of Lord Clarendon. He took an early opportunity to give an intimation in the House of Commons that, should the rejected claims be revived, the new Cabinet was not prepared to say what answer might be given them; in other words, that, should an opportunity be offered, Lord Russell's refusal might possibly be reconsidered. Mr. Seward met these overtures by instructing Mr. Adams, on the 27th of August, 1866, 'to call Lord Stanley's attention in a respectful but earnest manner,' to 'a summary of claims of citizens of the United States, for damages which were suffered by them during the period of the civil war,' and to say that the Government of the United States, while it thus insists upon these particular claims, is neither desirous nor willing to assume an attitude unkind and unconciliatory toward Great Britain. … Lord Stanley met this overture by a communication to Sir Frederick Bruce, in which he denied the liability of Great Britain, and assented to a reference, 'provided that a fitting Arbitrator can be found, and that an agreement can be come to as to the points to which the arbitration shall apply.' … As the first result of these negotiations, a convention known as the Stanley-Johnson convention was signed at London on the 10th of November, 1868. It proved to be unacceptable to the Government of the United States. Negotiations were at once resumed, and resulted on the 14th of January, 1869, in the Treaty known as the Johnson-Clarendon convention [having been negotiated by Mr. Reverdy Johnson, who had succeeded Mr. Adams as United States Minister to Great Britain]. This latter convention provided for the organization of a mixed commission with jurisdiction over 'all claims on the part of citizens of the United States upon the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, including the so-called Alabama claims, and all claims on the part of subjects of Her Britannic Majesty upon the Government of the United States which may have been presented to either government for its interposition with the other since the 26th July, 1853, and which yet remain unsettled.'" The Johnson-Clarendon treaty, when submitted to the Senate, was rejected by that body, in April, "because, although it made provision for the part of the Alabama claims which consisted of claims for individual losses, the provision for the more extensive national losses was not satisfactory to the Senate."

The Argument of the United States delivered to the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, June 15, 1872, Division 13, section 2.


ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1869-1871.
   Renewed Negotiations.
   Appointment and meeting of the Joint High Commission.

The action of the Senate in rejecting the Johnson-Clarendon treaty was taken in April, 1869, a few weeks after President Grant entered upon his office. At this time "the condition of Europe was such as to induce the British Ministers to take into consideration the foreign relations of Great Britain; and, as Lord Granville, the British Minister of Foreign Affairs, has himself stated in the House of Lords, they saw cause to look with solicitude on the uneasy relations of the British Government with the United States, and the inconvenience thereof in case of possible complications in Europe. Thus impelled, the Government dispatched to Washington a gentleman who enjoyed the confidence of both Cabinets, Sir John Rose, to ascertain whether overtures for reopening negotiations would be received by the President in spirit and terms acceptable to Great Britain. … Sir John Rose found the United States disposed to meet with perfect correspondence of good-will the advances of the British Government. Accordingly, on the 26th of January, 1871, the British Government, through Sir Edward Thornton, finally proposed to the American Government the appointment of a joint High Commission to hold its sessions at Washington, and there devise means to settle the various pending questions between the two Governments affecting the British possessions in North America. To this overture Mr. Fish replied that the President would with pleasure appoint, as invited, Commissioners on the part of the United States, provided the deliberations of the Commissioners should be extended to other differences,—that is to say, to include the differences growing out of incidents of the late Civil War. … The British Government promptly accepted this proposal for enlarging the sphere of the negotiation." The joint High Commission was speedily constituted, as proposed, by appointment of the two governments, and the promptitude of proceeding was such that the British commissioners landed at New York in twenty-seven days after Sir Edward Thornton's suggestion of January 26th was made. They sailed without waiting for their commissions, which were forwarded to them by special messenger. The High Commission was made up as follows: "On the part of the United States were five persons,—Hamilton Fish, Robert C. Schenck, Samuel Nelson, Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar, and George H. Williams,—eminently fit representatives of the diplomacy, the bench, the bar, and the legislature of the United States: on the part of Great Britain, Earl De Grey and Ripon, President of the Queen's Council; Sir Stafford Northcote, Ex-Minister and actual Member of the House of Commons; Sir Edward Thornton, the universally respected British Minister at Washington; Sir John [A.] Macdonald, the able and eloquent Premier of the Canadian Dominion; and, in revival of the good old time, when learning was equal to any other title of public honor, the Universities in the person of Professor Montague Bernard. … In the face of many difficulties, the Commissioners, on the 8th of May, 1871, completed a treaty [known as the Treaty of Washington], which received the prompt approval of their respective Governments."

C. Cushing, The Treaty of Washington, pages 18-20, and 11-13.

      ALSO IN
      A. Lang, Life, Letters, and Diaries of Sir Stafford
      Northcote, First Earl of Iddesleigh,
      chapter 12 (volume 2).

      A. Badeau,
      Grant in Peace,
      chapter 25.

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1871.
   The Treaty of Washington.

The treaty signed at Washington on the 8th day of May, 1871, and the ratifications of which were exchanged at London on the 17th day of the following June, set forth its principal agreement in the first two articles as follows: "Whereas differences have arisen between the Government of the United States and the Government of Her Brittanic Majesty, and still exist, growing out of the acts committed by the several vessels which have given rise to the claims generically known as the 'Alabama Claims;' and whereas Her Britannic Majesty has authorized Her High Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to express in a friendly spirit, the regret felt by Her Majesty's Government for the escape, under whatever circumstances, of the Alabama and other vessels from British ports, and for the depredations committed by those vessels: Now, in order to remove and adjust all complaints and claims on the part of the United States and to provide for the speedy settlement of such claims which are not admitted by Her Britannic Majesty's Government, the high contracting parties agree that all the said claims, growing out of acts committed by the aforesaid vessels, and generically known as the 'Alabama Claims,' shall be referred to a tribunal of arbitration to be composed of five Arbitrators, to be appointed in the following manner, that is to say: One shall be named by the President of the United States; one shall be named by Her Britannic Majesty; His Majesty the King of Italy shall be requested to name one; the President of the Swiss Confederation shall be requested to name one; and His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil shall be requested to name one. … The Arbitrators shall meet at Geneva, in Switzerland, at the earliest convenient day after they shall have been named, and shall proceed impartially and carefully to examine and decide all questions that shall be laid before them on the part of the Governments of the United States and Her Britannic Majesty respectively. All questions considered by the tribunal, including the final award, shall be decided by a majority of all the Arbitrators. Each of the high contracting parties shall also name one person to attend the tribunal as its Agent to represent it generally in all matters connected with the arbitration." Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the treaty specify the mode in which each party shall submit its case. Article 6 declares that, "In deciding the matters submitted to the Arbitrators, they shall be governed by the following three rules, which are agreed upon by the high contracting parties as rules to be taken as applicable to the case, and by such principles of international law not inconsistent therewith as the Arbitrators shall determine to have been applicable to the case: {28} A neutral Government is bound—First, to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a Power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use. Secondly, not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men. Thirdly to exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties. Her Britannic Majesty has commanded her High Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to declare that Her Majesty's Government cannot assent to the foregoing rules as a statement of principles of international law which were in force at the time when the claims mentioned in Article 1 arose, but that Her Majesty's Government, in order to evince its desire of strengthening the friendly relations between the two countries and of making satisfactory provision for the future, agrees that in deciding the questions between the two countries arising out of those claims, the Arbitrators should assume that Her Majesty's Government had undertaken to act upon the principles set forth in these rules. And the high contracting parties agree to observe these rules as between themselves in future, and to bring them to the knowledge of other maritime powers, and to invite them to accede to them." Articles 7 to 17, inclusive, relate to the procedure of the tribunal of arbitration, and provide for the determination of claims, by assessors and commissioners, in case the Arbitrators should find any liability on the part of Great Britain and should not award a sum in gross to be paid in settlement thereof. Articles 18 to 25 relate to the Fisheries. By Article 18 it is agreed that in addition to the liberty secured to American fishermen by the convention of 1818, "of taking, curing and drying fish on certain coasts of the British North American colonies therein defined, the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty for [a period of ten years, and two years further after notice given by either party of its wish to terminate the arrangement] … to take fish of every kind, except shell fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbours and creeks, of the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and the colony of Prince Edward's Island, and of the several islands thereunto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance from the shore, with permission to land upon the said coasts and shores and islands, and also upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish; provided that, in so doing, they do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with British fishermen, in the peaceable use of any part of the said coasts in their occupancy for the same purpose. It is understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to the sea-fishery, and that the salmon and shad fisheries, and all other fisheries in rivers and the mouths of rivers, are hereby reserved exclusively for British fishermen." Article 19 secures to British subjects the corresponding rights of fishing, &c., on the eastern sea-coasts and shores of the United States north of the 39th parallel of north latitude. Article 20 reserves from these stipulations the places that were reserved from the common right of fishing under the first article of the treaty of June 5, 1854. Article 21 provides for the reciprocal admission of fish and fish oil into each country from the other, free of duty (excepting fish of the inland lakes and fish preserved in oil). Article 22 provides that, "Inasmuch as it is asserted by the Government of Her Britannic Majesty that the privileges accorded to the citizens of the United States under Article XVIII of this treaty are of greater value than those accorded by Articles XIX and XXI of this treaty to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, and this assertion is not admitted by the Government of the United States, it is further agreed that Commissioners shall be appointed to determine … the amount of any compensation which in their opinion, ought to be paid by the Government of the United States to the Government of Her Britannic Majesty." Article 23 provides for the appointment of such Commissioners, one by the President of the United States, one by Her Britannic Majesty, and the third by the President and Her Majesty conjointly; or, failing of agreement within three months, the third Commissioner to be named by the Austrian Minister at London. The Commissioners to meet at Halifax, and their procedure to be as prescribed and regulated by Articles 24 and 25. Articles 26 to 31 define certain reciprocal privileges accorded by each government to the subjects of the other, including the navigation of the St. Lawrence, Yukon, Porcupine and Stikine Rivers, Lake Michigan, and the WeIland, St. Lawrence and St. Clair Flats canals; and the transportation of goods in bond through the territory of one country into the other without payment of duties. Article 32 extends the provisions of Articles 18 to 25 of the treaty to Newfoundland if all parties concerned enact the necessary laws, but not otherwise. Article 33 limits the duration of Articles 18 to 25 and Article 30, to ten years from the date of their going into effect, and "further until the expiration of two years after either of the two high contracting parties shall have given notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same." The remaining articles of the treaty provide for submitting to the arbitration of the Emperor of Germany the Northwestern water-boundary question (in the channel between Vancouver's Island and the continent)—to complete the settlement of Northwestern boundary disputes.

Treaties and Conventions between the U. S. and other Powers (edition of 1889), pages 478-493.

ALSO IN C. Cushing, The Treaty of Washington, appendix.


ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1871-1872.
   The Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, and its Award.

"The appointment of Arbitrators took place in due course, and with the ready good-will of the three neutral governments. The United States appointed Mr. Charles Francis Adams; Great Britain appointed Sir Alexander Cockburn; the King of Italy named Count Frederic Sclopis; the President of the Swiss Confederation, Mr. Jacob Stæmpfii; and the Emperor of Brazil, the Baron d'Itajubá. Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis was appointed Agent of the United States, and Lord Tenterden of Great Britain. The Tribunal was organized for the reception of the case of each party, and held its first conference [at Geneva, Switzerland] on the 15th of December, 1871," Count Sclopis being chosen to preside. "The printed Case of the United States, with accompanying documents, was filed by Mr. Bancroft Davis, and the printed Case of Great Britain, with documents, by Lord Tenterden. The Tribunal made regulation for the filing of the respective Counter-Cases on or before the 15th day of April next ensuing, as required by the Treaty; and for the convening of a special meeting of the Tribunal, if occasion should require; and then, at a second meeting, on the next day, they adjourned until the 15th of June next ensuing, subject to a prior call by the Secretary, if there should be occasion." The sessions of the Tribunal were resumed on the 15th of June, 1872, according to the adjournment, and were continued until the 14th of September following, when the decision and award were announced, and were signed by all the Arbitrators except the British representative, Sir Alexander Cockburn, who dissented. It was found by the Tribunal that the British Government had "failed to use due diligence in the performance of its neutral obligations" with respect to the cruisers Alabama and Florida, and the several tenders of those vessels; and also with respect to the Shenandoah after her departure from Melbourne, February 18, 1865, but not before that date. With respect to the Georgia, the Sumter, the Nashville, the Tallahassee and the Chickamauga, it was the finding of the Tribunal that Great Britain had not failed to perform the duties of a neutral power. So far as relates to the vessels called the Sallie, the Jefferson Davis, the Music, the Boston, and the V. H. Joy, it was the decision of the Tribunal that they ought to be excluded from consideration for want of evidence. "So far as relates to the particulars of the indemnity claimed by the United States, the costs of pursuit of Confederate cruisers" are declared to be "not, in the judgment of the Tribunal, properly distinguishable from the general expenses of the war carried on by the United States," and "there is no ground for awarding to the United States any sum by way of indemnity under this head." A similar decision put aside the whole consideration of claims for "prospective earnings." Finally, the award was rendered in the following language: "Whereas, in order to arrive at an equitable compensation for the damages which have been sustained, it is necessary to set aside all double claims for the same losses, and all claims for 'gross freights' so far as they exceed 'net freights;' and whereas it is just and reasonable to allow interest at a reasonable rate; and whereas, in accordance with the spirit and letter of the Treaty of Washington, it is preferable to adopt the form of adjudication of a sum in gross, rather than to refer the subject of compensation for further discussion and deliberation to a Board of Assessors, as provided by Article X of the said Treaty: The Tribunal, making use of the authority conferred upon it by Article VII of the said Treaty, by a majority of four voices to one, awards to the United States the sum of fifteen millions five hundred thousand Dollars in gold as the indemnity to be paid by Great Britain to the United States for the satisfaction of all the claims referred to the consideration of the Tribunal, conformably to the provisions contained in Article VII of the aforesaid Treaty." It should be stated that the so-called "indirect claims" of the United States, for consequential losses and damages, growing out of the encouragement of the Southern Rebellion, the prolongation of the war, &c., were dropped from consideration at the outset of the session of the Tribunal, in June, the Arbitrators agreeing then in a statement of opinion to the effect that "these claims do not constitute, upon the principles of international law applicable to such cases, good foundation for an award of compensation or computation of damages between nations." This declaration was accepted by the United States as decisive of the question, and the hearing proceeded accordingly.

      C. Cushing,
      The Treaty of Washington.

      ALSO IN
      F. Wharton,
      Digest of the International Law of the United States,
      chapter 21 (volume 3).

—————ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: End—————

ALACAB, OR TOLOSO, Battle of (1212).

See ALMOHADES, and SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232.

ALADSHA, Battles of (1877).
      See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

ALAMANCE, Battle Of(1771).

See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1771.



ALAMO, The massacre of the (1836).

See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

ALAMOOT, OR ALAMOUT, The castle of.

The stronghold of the "Old Man of the Mountain," or Sheikh of the terrible order of the Assassins, in northern Persia. Its name signifies "the Eagle's nest," or "the Vulture's nest."



"The Alani are first mentioned by Dionysius the geographer (B. C. 30-10) who joins them with the Daci and the Tauri, and again places them between the latter and the Agathyrsi. A similar position (in the south of Russia in Europe, the modern Ukraine) is assigned to them by Pliny and Josephus. Seneca places them further west upon the Ister. Ptolemy has two bodies of Alani, one in the position above described, the other in Scythia within the Imaus, north and partly east of the Caspian. It must have been from these last, the successors, and, according to some, the descendants of the ancient Massagetæ, that the Alani came who attacked Pacorus and Tiridates [in Media and Armenia, A. D. 75]. … The result seems to have been that the invaders, after ravaging and harrying Media and Armenia at their pleasure, carried off a vast number of prisoners and an enormous booty into their own country."

G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 17.

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 6, note H.

"The first of this [the Tartar] race known to the Romans were the Alani. In the fourth century they pitched their tents in the country between the Volga and the Tanais, at an equal distance from the Black Sea and the Caspian."

J. C. L. Sismondi, Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 3.


ALANS: A. D. 376.
   Conquest by the Huns.


ALANS: A. D. 406-409.
   Final Invasion of Gaul.

See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.

ALANS: A. D. 409-414.
   Settlement in Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

ALANS: A. D. 429.
   With the Vandals in Africa.

See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.

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

See HUNS: A. D. 451.

—————ALANS: End—————

ALARCOS, Battle of (A. D. 1195).



      See GOTHS: A. D. 395; 400-403,
      and ROME: A. D. 408-410.


"The Alarodians of Herodotus, joined with the Sapeires … are almost certainly the inhabitants of Armenia, whose Semitic name was Urarda, or Ararat. 'Alarud,' indeed, is a mere variant form of 'Ararud,' the l and r being undistinguishable in the old Persian, and 'Ararud' serves determinately to connect the Ararat of Scripture with the Urarda, or Urartha of the Inscriptions. … The name of Ararat is constantly used in Scripture, but always to denote a country rather than a particular mountain. … The connexion … of Urarda with the Babylonian tribe of Akkad is proved by the application in the inscriptions of the ethnic title of Burbur (?) to the Armenian king … ; but there is nothing to prove whether the Burbur or Akkad of Babylonia descended in a very remote age from the mountains to colonize the plains, or whether the Urardians were refugees of a later period driven northward by the growing power of the Semites. The former supposition, however, is most in conformity with Scripture, and incidentally with the tenor of the inscriptions."

H. C. Rawlinson, History of Herodotus, book 7, appendix 3.

"The broad and rich valley of the Kur, which corresponds closely with the modern Russian province of Georgia, was [anciently] in the possession of a people called by Herodotus Saspeires or Sapeires, whom we may identify with the Iberians of later writers. Adjoining upon them towards the south, probably in the country about Erivan, and so in the neighbourhood of Ararat, were the Alarodians, whose name must be connected with that of the great mountain. On the other side of the Sapeirian country, in the tracts now known as Mingrelia and Imeritia, regions of a wonderful beauty and fertility, were the Colchians,—dependents, but not exactly subjects, of Persia."

G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Persia, chapter 1.

ALASKA: A. D. 1867.
   Purchase by the United States.

As early as 1859 there were unofficial communications between the Russian and American governments, on the subject of the sale of Alaska by the former to the latter. Russia was more than willing to part with a piece of territory which she found difficulty in defending, in war; and the interests connected with the fisheries and the fur-trade in the north-west were disposed to promote the transfer. In March, 1867, definite negotiations on the subject were opened by the Russian minister at Washington, and on the 23d of that month he received from Secretary Seward an offer, subject to the President's approval, of $7,200,000, on condition that the cession be "free and unencumbered by any reservations, privileges, franchises, grants, or possessions by any associated companies, whether corporate or incorporate, Russian, or any other." "Two days later an answer was returned, stating that the minister believed himself authorized to accept these terms. On the 29th final instructions were received by cable from St. Petersburg. On the same day a note was addressed by the minister to the secretary of state, informing him that the tsar consented to the cession of Russian America for the stipulated sum of $7,200,000 in gold. At four o'clock the next morning the treaty was signed by the two parties without further phrase or negotiation. In May the treaty was ratified, and on June 20, 1867, the usual proclamation was issued by the president of the United States." On the 18th of October, 1867, the formal transfer of the territory was made, at Sitka, General Rousseau taking possession in the name of the Government of the United States.

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 28, chapter 28.

ALSO IN W. H. Dall, Alaska and its Resources, part 2, chapter 2.

For some account of the aboriginal inhabitants,


ALATOONA, Battle of.


   Alban Mount.

"Cantons … having their rendezvous in some stronghold, and including a certain number of clanships, form the primitive political unities with which Italian history begins. At what period, and to what extent, such cantons were formed in Latium, cannot be determined with precision; nor is it a matter of special historical interest. The isolated Alban range, that natural stronghold of Latium, which offered to settlers the most wholesome air, the freshest springs, and the most secure position, would doubtless be first occupied by the new comers. Here accordingly, along the narrow plateau above Palazzuola, between the Alban lake (Lago di Castello) and the Alban mount (Monte Cavo) extended the town of Alba, which was universally regarded as the primitive seat of the Latin stock, and the mother-city of Rome, as well as of all the other Old Latin communities. Here, too, on the slopes lay the very ancient Latin canton-centres of Lanuvium, Aricia, and Tusculum. … All these cantons were in primitive times politically sovereign, and each of them was governed by its prince with the co-operation of the council of elders and the assembly of warriors. Nevertheless the feeling of fellowship based on community of descent and of language not only pervaded the whole of them, but manifested itself in an important religious and political institution—the perpetual league of the collective Latin cantons. The presidency belonged originally, according to the universal Italian as well as Hellenic usage, to that canton within whose bounds lay the meeting-place of the league; in this case it was the canton of Alba. … The communities entitled to participate in the league were in the beginning thirty. … The rendezvous of this union was, like the Pambœotia and the Panionia among the similar confederacies of the Greeks, the 'Latin festival' (feriæ Latinæ) at which, on the Mount of Alba, upon a day annually appointed by the chief magistrate for the purpose, an ox was offered in sacrifice by the assembled Latin stock to the 'Latin god' (Jupiter Latiaris)."

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

ALSO IN Sir W. Gell, Topography of Rome, volume 1.


ALBA DE TORMES, Battle of.




ALBAN, Kingdom of.






ALBANIANS: Mediæval.

"From the settlement of the Servian Sclavonians within the bounds of the empire [during the reign of Heraclius, first half of the seventh century], we may … venture to date the earliest encroachments of the Illyrian or Albanian race on the Hellenic population. The Albanians or Arnauts, who are now called by themselves Skiptars, are supposed to be remains of the great Thracian race which, under various names, and more particularly as Paionians, Epirots and Macedonians, take an important part in early Grecian history. No distinct trace of the period at which they began to be co-proprietors of Greece with the Hellenic race can be found in history. … It seems very difficult to trace back the history of the Greek nation without suspecting that the germs of their modern condition, like those of their neighbours, are to be sought in the singular events which occurred in the reign of Heraclius."

G. Finlay, Greece Under the Romans, chapter 4, section 6.

ALBANIANS: A. D. 1443-1467.
   Scanderbeg's War with the Turks.

"John Castriot, Lord of Emalthia (the modern district of Moghlene) [in Epirus or Albania] had submitted, like the other petty despots of those regions, to Amurath early in his reign, and had placed his four sons in the Sultan's hands as hostages for his fidelity. Three of them died young. The fourth, whose name was George, pleased the Sultan by his beauty, strength and intelligence. Amurath caused him to be brought up in the Mahometan creed; and, when he was only eighteen, conferred on him the government of one of the Sanjaks of the empire. The young Albanian proved his courage and skill in many exploits under Amurath's eye, and received from him the name of Iskanderbeg, the lord Alexander. When John Castriot died, Amurath took possession of his principalities and kept the son constantly employed in distant wars. Scanderbeg brooded over this injury; and when the Turkish armies were routed by Hunyades in the campaign of 1443, Scanderbeg determined to escape from their side and assume forcible possession of his patrimony. He suddenly entered the tent of the Sultan's chief secretary, and forced that functionary, with the poniard at his throat, to write and seal a formal order to the Turkish commander of the strong city of Croia, in Albania, to deliver that place and the adjacent territory to Scanderbeg, as the Sultan's viceroy. He then stabbed the secretary and hastened to Croia, where his strategem gained him instant admittance and submission. He now publicly abjured the Mahometan faith, and declared his intention of defending the creed of his forefathers, and restoring the independence of his native land. The Christian population flocked readily to his banner and the Turks were massacred without mercy. For nearly twenty-five years Scanderbeg contended against all the power of the Ottomans, though directed by the skill of Amurath and his successor Mahomet, the conqueror of Constantinople."

Sir E. S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, chapter 4.

"Scanderbeg died a fugitive at Lissus on the Venetian territory [A. D. 1467]. His sepulchre was soon violated by the Turkish conquerors; but the janizaries, who wore his bones enchased in a bracelet, declared by this superstitious amulet their involuntary reverence for his valour. … His infant son was saved from the national shipwreck; the Castriots were invested with a Neapolitan dukedom, and their blood continues to flow in the noblest families of the realm."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 67.

ALSO IN A. Lamartine, History of Turkey, book 11, sections 11-25.

ALBANIANS: A. D. 1694-1696.
   Conquests by the Venetians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

—————ALBANIANS: End—————

   The first Settlement.

In 1614, the year after the first Dutch traders had established their operations on Manhattan Island, they built a trading house, which they called Fort Nassau, on Castle Island, in the Hudson River, a little below the site of the present city of Albany. Three years later this small fort was carried away by a flood and the island abandoned. In 1623 a more important fortification, named Fort Orange, was erected on the site afterwards covered by the business part of Albany. That year, "about eighteen families settled themselves at Fort Orange, under Adriaen Joris, who 'staid with them all winter,' after sending his ship home to Holland in charge of his son. As soon as the colonists had built themselves 'some huts of bark' around the fort, the Mahikanders or River Indians [Mohegans], the Mohawks, the Oneidas, the Onondagas, the Cayugas, and the Senecas, with the Mahawawa or Ottawawa Indians, 'came and made covenants of friendship … and desired that they might come and have a constant free trade with them, which was concluded upon.'"

J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of New York, volume 1, pages 55 and 151.

   Embraced in the land-purchase of Patroon Van Rensselaer.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646.

   Occupied and named by the English.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

   Again occupied by the Dutch.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

   The Colonial Congress and its plans of Union.


—————ALBANY, NEW YORK: End—————




See NEW YORK; A. D. 1823.

ALBEMARLE, The Ram, and her destruction.


ALBERONI, Cardinal, The Spanish Ministry of.

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


  King of Sweden, A. D. 1365-1388.
  Albert, Elector of Brandenburg, A. D. 1470-1486.
  Albert I., Duke of Austria and
    King of Germany, A. D. 1298-1308.
  Albert II., Duke of Austria, King of Hungary and
  Bohemia, A. D. 1437-1440;
  King of Germany, A. D. 1438-1440.

ALBERTA, The District of.



See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.


A Gallic tribe which occupied the hills above Massilia (Marseilles) and who are described as a savage people even in the time of Cæsar, when they helped the Massiliots to defend their city against him.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 5, chapter 4.


"Nothing is more curious in Christian history than the vitality of the Manichean opinions. That wild, half poetic, half rationalistic theory of Christianity, … appears almost suddenly in the 12th century, in living, almost irresistible power, first in its intermediate settlement in Bulgaria, and on the borders of the Greek Empire, then in Italy, in France, in Germany, in the remoter West, at the foot of the Pyrenees. … The chief seat of these opinions was the south of France. Innocent III., on his accession, found not only these daring insurgents scattered in the cities of Italy, even, as it were, at his own gates (among his first acts was to subdue the Paterines of Viterbo), he found a whole province, a realm, in some respects the richest and noblest of his spiritual domain, absolutely dissevered from his Empire, in almost universal revolt from Latin Christianity. … In no [other] European country had the clergy so entirely, or it should seem so deservedly, forfeited its authority. In none had the Church more absolutely ceased to perform its proper functions."

H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity, book 9, chapter 8.

"By mere chance, the sects scattered in South France received the common name of Albigenses, from one of the districts where the agents of the church who came to combat them found them mostly to abound,—the district around the town of Alba, or Alby; and by this common name they were well known from the commencement of the thirteenth century. Under this general denomination parties of different tenets were comprehended together, but the Catharists seem to have constituted a predominant element among the people thus designated."

      A. Neander,
      General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
      5th per., division 2, section 4, part 3.

"Of the sectaries who shared the errors of Gnosticism and Manichæism and opposed the Catholic Church and her hierarchy, the Albigenses were the most thorough and radical. Their errors were, indeed, partly Gnostic and partly Manichæan, but the latter was the more prominent and fully developed. They received their name from a district of Languedoc, inhabited by the Albigeois and surrounding the town of Albi. They are called Cathari and Patarini in the acts of the Council of Tours (A. D. 1163), and in those of the third Lateran, Publiciani (i. e., Pauliciani). Like the Cathari, they also held that the evil spirit created all visible things."

Johannes Baptist Alzog, Manual of Universal Church History, period 2, epoch 2, part 1, chapter 3, section 236.

"The imputations of irreligion, heresy, and shameless debauchery, which have been cast with so much bitterness on the Albigenses by their persecutors, and which have been so zealously denied by their apologists, are probably not ill founded, if the word Albigenses be employed as synonymous with the words Provençaux or Languedocians; for they were apparently a race among whom the hallowed charities of domestic life, and the reverence due to divine ordinances and the homage due to divine truth, were often impaired, and not seldom extinguished, by ribald jests, by infidel scoffings, and by heart-hardening impurities. Like other voluptuaries, the Provençaux (as their remaining literature attests) were accustomed to find matter for merriment in vices which would have moved wise men to tears. But if by the word Albigenses be meant the Vaudois, or those followers (or associates) of Peter Waldo who revived the doctrines against which the Church of Rome directed her censures, then the accusation of dissoluteness of manners may be safely rejected as altogether calumnious, and the charge of heresy may be considered, if not as entirely unfounded, yet as a cruel and injurious exaggeration."

Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France, lecture 7.

      ALSO IN
      L. Mariotti,
      Frà Dolcino and his Times.

See, also, Paulicians, and Catharists.

   The First Crusade.

   "Pope Innocent III., in organizing the persecution of the
   Catharins [or Catharists], the Patarins, and the Pauvres de
   Lyons, exercised a spirit, and displayed a genius similar to
   those which had already elevated him to almost universal
   dominion; which had enabled him to dictate at once to Italy
   and to Germany; to control the kings of France, of Spain, and
   of England; to overthrow the Greek Empire, and to substitute
   in its stead a Latin dynasty at Constantinople. In the zeal of
   the Cistercian Order, and of their Abbot, Arnaud Amalric; in
   the fiery and unwearied preaching of the first Inquisitor, the
   Spanish Missionary, Dominic; in the remorseless activity of
   Foulquet, Bishop of Toulouse; and above all, in the strong and
   unpitying arm of Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester,
   Innocent found ready instruments for his purpose. Thus aided;
   he excommunicated Raymond of Toulouse [A. D. 1207], as Chief
   of the Heretics, and he promised remission of sins, and all
   the privileges which had hitherto been exclusively conferred
   on adventurers in Palestine, to the champions who should
   enroll themselves as Crusaders in the far more easy enterprise
   of a Holy War against the Albigenses. In the first invasion of
   his territories [A. D. 1209], Raymond VI. gave way before the
   terrors excited by the 300,000 fanatics who precipitated
   themselves on Languedoc; and loudly declaring his personal
   freedom from heresy, he surrendered his chief castles,
   underwent a humiliating penance, and took the cross against
   his own subjects. The brave resistance of his nephew Raymond
   Roger, Viscount of Bezières, deserved but did not obtain
   success. When the crusaders surrounded his capital, which was
   occupied by a mixed population of the two Religions, a
   question was raised how, in the approaching sack, the
   Catholics should be distinguished from the Heretics. 'Kill
   them all,' was the ferocious reply of Amalric; 'the Lord will
   easily know His own.' In compliance with this advice, not one
   human being within the walls was permitted to survive;
  and the tale of slaughter has been variously estimated, by
  those who have perhaps exaggerated the numbers, at 60,000, but
  even in the extenuating despatch, which the Abbot himself
  addressed to the Pope, at not fewer than 15,000. Raymond Roger
  was not included in this fearful massacre, and he repulsed two
  attacks upon Carcassonne, before a treacherous breach of faith
  placed him at the disposal of de Montfort, by whom he was
  poisoned after a short imprisonment. The removal of that young
  and gallant Prince was indeed most important to the ulterior
  project of his captor, who aimed at permanent establishment in
  the South. The family of de Montfort had ranked among the
  nobles of France for more than two centuries; and it is traced
  by some writers through an illegitimate channel even to the
  throne: but the possessions of Simon himself were scanty;
  necessity had compelled him to sell the County of Evreux to
  Philippe Auguste; and the English Earldom of Leicester which he
  inherited maternally, and the Lordship of a Castle about ten
  leagues distant from Paris, formed the whole of his revenues."

      _E. Smedley,
      History of France,
      chapter _4.

      ALSO IN
      J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Crusades against the Albigenses,
      chapter 1.

      H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 9, chapter 8.

      J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      period 2, epoch 2, part 1, chapter 3

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

ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1210-1213.
   The Second Crusade.

"The conquest of the Viscounty of Beziers had rather inflamed than satiated the cupidity of De Montfort and the fanaticism of Amalric [legate of the Pope] and of the monks of Citeaux. Raymond, Count of Toulouse, still possessed the fairest part of Languedoc, and was still suspected or accused of affording shelter, if not countenance, to his heretical subjects. … The unhappy Raymond was … again excommunicated from the Christian Church, and his dominions offered as a reward to the champions who should execute her sentence against him. To earn that reward De Montfort, at the head of a new host of Crusaders, attracted by the promise of earthly spoils and of heavenly blessedness, once more marched through the devoted land [A. D. 1210], and with him advanced Amalric. At each successive conquest, slaughter, rapine, and woes such as may not be described tracked and polluted their steps. Heretics, or those suspected of heresy, wherever they were found, were compelled by the legate to ascend vast piles of burning faggots. … At length the Crusaders reached and laid siege to the city of Toulouse. … Throwing himself into the place, Raymond … succeeded in repulsing De Montfort and Amalric. It was, however, but a temporary respite, and the prelude to a fearful destruction. From beyond the Pyrenees, at the head of 1,000 knights, Pedro of Arragon had marched to the rescue of Raymond, his kinsman, and of the counts of Foix and of Comminges, and of the Viscount of Béarn, his vassals; and their united forces came into communication with each other at Muret, a little town which is about three leagues distant from Toulouse. There, also, on the 12th of September [A. D. 1213], at the head of the champions of the Cross, and attended by seven bishops, appeared Simon de Montfort in full military array. The battle which followed was fierce, short and decisive. … Don Pedro was numbered with the slain. His army, deprived of his command, broke and dispersed, and the whole of the infantry of Raymond and his allies were either put to the sword, or swept a way by the current of the Garonne. Toulouse immediately surrendered, and the whole of the dominions of Raymond submitted to the conquerors. At a council subsequently held at Montpellier, composed of five archbishops and twenty-eight bishops, De Montfort was unanimously acknowledged as prince of the fief and city of Toulouse, and of the other counties conquered by the Crusaders under his command."

Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France, lecture 7.

      ALSO IN
      J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of Crusades against the Albigenses,
      chapter 2.

ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.
   The Renewed Crusades.
   Dissolution of the County of Toulouse.
   Pacification of Languedoc.

   "The cruel spirit of De Montfort would not allow him to rest
   quiet in his new Empire. Violence and persecution marked his
   rule; he sought to destroy the Provençal population by the
   sword or the stake, nor could he bring himself to tolerate the
   liberties of the citizens of Toulouse. In 1217 the Toulousans
   again revolted, and war once more broke out betwixt Count
   Raymond and Simon de Montfort. The latter formed the siege of
   the capital, and was engaged in repelling a sally, when a
   stone from one of the walls struck him and put an end to his
   existence. … Amaury de Montfort, son of Simon, offered to
   cede to the king all his rights in Languedoc, which he was
   unable to defend against the old house of Toulouse. Philip
   [Augustus] hesitated to accept the important cession, and left
   the rival houses to the continuance of a struggle carried
   feebly on by either side." King Philip died in 1223 and was
   succeeded by a son, Louis VIII., who had none of his father's
   reluctance to join in the grasping persecution of the
   unfortunate people of the south. Amaury de Montfort had been
   fairly driven out of old Simon de Montfort's conquests, and he
   now sold them to King Louis for the office of constable of
   France. "A new crusade was preached against the Albigenses;
   and Louis marched towards Languedoc at the head of a
   formidable army in the spring of the year 1226. The town of
   Avignon had proferred to the crusaders the facilities of
   crossing the Rhone under her walls, but refused entry within
   them to such a host. Louis having arrived at Avignon, insisted
   on passing through the town: the Avignonais shut their gates,
   and defied the monarch, who instantly formed the siege. One of
   the rich municipalities of the south was almost a match for
   the king of France. He was kept three months under its walls;
   his army a prey to famine, to disease and to the assaults of a
   brave garrison. The crusaders lost 20,000 men. The people of
   Avignon at length submitted, but on no dishonourable terms.
   This was the only resistance that Louis experienced in
   Languedoc. … All submitted. Louis retired from his facile
   conquest; he himself, and the chiefs of his army stricken by
   an epidemy which had prevailed in the conquered regions. The
   monarch's feeble frame could not resist it; he expired at
   Montpensier, in Auvergne, in November, 1226." Louis VIII. was
   succeeded by his young son, Louis IX. (Saint Louis), then a
   boy, under the regency of his energetic and capable mother,
   Blanche of Castile.
   "The termination of the war with the Albigenses, and
   the pacification, or it might be called the acquisition, of
   Languedoc, was the chief act of Queen Blanche's regency. Louis
   VIII. had overrun the country without resistance in his last
   campaign; still, at his departure, Raymond VI. again appeared,
   collected soldiers and continued to struggle against the royal
   lieutenant. For upward of two years he maintained himself; the
   attention of Blanche being occupied by the league of the
   barons against her. The successes of Raymond VII., accompanied
   by cruelties, awakened the vindictive zeal of the pope.
   Languedoc was threatened with another crusade; Raymond was
   willing to treat, and make considerable cessions, in order to
   avoid such extremities. In April, 1229, a treaty was signed:
   in it the rights of De Montfort were passed over. About
   two-thirds of the domains of the count of Toulouse were ceded
   to the king of France; the remainder was to fall, after
   Raymond's death, to his daughter Jeanne, who by the same
   treaty was to marry one of the royal princes: heirs failing
   them, it was to revert to the crown [which it did in 1271]. On
   these terms, with the humiliating addition of a public
   penance, Raymond VII. once more was allowed peaceable
   possession of Toulouse, and of the part of his domains
   reserved to him. Alphonse, brother of Louis IX., married
   Jeanne of Toulouse soon after, and took the title of count of
   Poitiers; that province being ceded to him in apanage. Robert,
   another brother, was made count of Artois at the same time.
   Louis himself married Margaret, the eldest daughter of Raymond
   Berenger, count of Provence."

E. E. Crowe, History of France, volume 1, chapter 2-3.

"The struggle ended in a vast increase of the power of the French crown, at the expense alike of the house of Toulouse and of the house of Aragon. The dominions of the count of Toulouse were divided. A number of fiefs, Beziers, Narbonne, Nimes, Albi, and some other districts were at once annexed to the crown. The capital itself and its county passed to the crown fifty years later. … The name of Toulouse, except as the name of the city itself, now passed away, and the new acquisitions of France came in the end to be known by the name of the tongue which was common to them with Aquitaine and Imperial Burgundy [Provence]. Under the name of Languedoc they became one of the greatest and most valuable provinces of the French kingdom."

E. A. Freeman, History Geography of Europe, chapter 9.

The brutality and destructiveness of the Crusades.

"The Church of the Albigenses had been drowned in blood. These supposed heretics had been swept away from the soil of France. The rest of the Languedocian people had been overwhelmed with calamity, slaughter, and devastation. The estimates transmitted to us of the numbers of the invaders and of the slain are such as almost surpass belief. We can neither verify nor correct them; but we certainly know that, during a long succession of years, Languedoc had been invaded by armies more numerous than had ever before been brought together in European warfare since the fall of the Roman empire. We know that these hosts were composed of men inflamed by bigotry and unrestrained by discipline; that they had neither military pay nor magazines; that they provided for all their wants by the sword, living at the expense of the country, and seizing at their pleasure both the harvests of the peasants and the merchandise of the citizens. More than three-fourths of the landed proprietors had been despoiled of their fiefs and castles. In hundreds of villages, every inhabitant had been massacred. … Since the sack of Rome by the Vandals, the European world had never mourned over a national disaster so wide in its extent or so fearful in its character."

Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France, lecture 7.

—————ALBIGENSES: End—————


"The most ancient name known to have been given to this island [Britain] is that of Albion. … There is, however, another allusion to Britain which seems to carry us much further back, though it has usually been ill understood. It occurs in the story of the labours of Hercules, who, after securing the cows of Geryon, comes from Spain to Liguria, where he is attacked by two giants, whom he kills before making his way to Italy. Now, according to Pomponius Mela, the names of the giants were Albiona and Bergyon, which one may, without much hesitation, restore to the forms of Albion and Iberion, representing, undoubtedly, Britain and Ireland, the position of which in the sea is most appropriately symbolized by the story making them sons of Neptune or the sea-god. … Even in the time of Pliny, Albion, as the name of the island, had fallen out of use with Latin authors; but not so with the Greeks, or with the Celts themselves, at any rate those of the Goidelic branch; for they are probably right who suppose that we have but the same word in the Irish and Scotch Gælic Alba, genitive Alban, the kingdom of Alban or Scotland beyond the Forth. Albion would be a form of the name according to the Brythonic pronunciation of it. … It would thus appear that the name Albion is one that has retreated to a corner of the island, to the whole of which it once applied."

J. Rhys, Celtic Britain, chapter 6.

ALSO IN E. Guest, Origines Celticae, chapter 1.


   The ancient name of the river Elbe.

ALBOIN, King of the Lombards, A. D. 569-573.


"The word alcalde is from the Arabic 'al cadi,' the judge or governor. … Alcalde mayor signifies a judge, learned in the law, who exercises [in Spain] ordinary jurisdiction, civil and criminal, in a town or district." In the Spanish colonies the Alcalde mayor was the chief judge. "Irving (Columbus, ii. 331) writes erroneously alguazil mayor, evidently confounding the two offices. … An alguacil mayor, was a chief constable or high sheriff." "Corregidor, a magistrate having civil and criminal jurisdiction in the first instance ('nisi prius') and gubernatorial inspection in the political and economical government in all the towns of the district assigned to him."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1, pages 297 and 250, foot-notes.

ALCANIZ, Battle of.


ALCANTARA, Battle of the (1580).

See PORTUGAL; A. D. 1579-1580.


ALCANTARA, Knights of.

"Towards the close of Alfonso's reign [Alfonso VIII. of Castile and Leon, who called himself 'the Emperor,' A. D. 1126-1157], may be assigned the origin of the military order of Alcantara. Two cavaliers of Salamanca, don Suero and don Gomez, left that city with the design of choosing and fortifying some strong natural frontier, whence they could not only arrest the continual incursions of the Moors, but make hostile irruptions themselves into the territories of the misbelievers. Proceeding along the banks of the Coales, they fell in with a hermit, Amando by name, who encouraged them in their patriotic design and recommended the neighbouring hermitage of St. Julian as an excellent site for a fortress. Having examined and approved the situation, they applied to the bishop of Salamanca for permission to occupy the place: that permission was readily granted: with his assistance, and that of the hermit Amando, the two cavaliers erected a castle around the hermitage. They were now joined by other nobles and by more adventurers, all eager to acquire fame and wealth in this life, glory in the next. Hence the foundation of an order which, under the name, first, of St. Julian, and subsequently of Alcantara, rendered good service alike to king and church."

S. A. Dunham, History of Spain and Portugal, book 3, section 2, chapter 1, division. 2.

ALCAZAR, OR "THE THREE KINGS," Battle of (1578 or 1579).


ALCIBIADES, The career of.

See GREECE: B. C. 421-418, and 411-407; and ATHENS: B. C. 415, and 413-411.


Rhydderch, a Cumbrian prince of the sixth century who was the victor in a civil conflict, "fixed his headquarters on a rock in the Clyde, called in the Welsh Alclud [previously a Roman town known as Theodosia], whence it was known to the English for a time as Alclyde; but the Goidels called it Dunbrettan, or the fortress of the Brythons, which has prevailed in the slightly modified form of Dumbarton. … Alclyde was more than once destroyed by the Northmen."

J. Rhys; Celtic Britain, chapter 4.

See, also, CUMBRIA.

ALCMÆONIDS, The curse and banishment of the.

See ATHENS: B. C. 612-595.

ALCOLEA, Battle of (1868).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.

ALDIE, Battle of.



See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1469-1515.

ALEMANNIA: The Mediæval Duchy.

See GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.

ALAMANNI: A. D. 213.
   Origin and first appearance.

"Under Antoninus, the Son of Severus, a new and more severe war once more (A. D. 213) broke out in Raetia. This also was waged against the Chatti; but by their side a second people is named, which we here meet for the first time—the Alamanni. Whence they came, we known not. According to a Roman writing a little later, they were a conflux of mixed elements; the appellation also seems to point to a league of communities, as well as the fact that, afterwards, the different tribes comprehended under this name stand forth—more than is the case among the other great Germanic peoples—in their separate character, and the Juthungi, the Lentienses, and other Alamannic peoples not seldom act independently. But that it is not the Germans of this region who here emerge, allied under the new name and strengthened by the alliance, is shown as well by the naming of the Alamanni along side of the Chatti, as by the mention of the unwonted skilfulness of the Alamanni in equestrian combat. On the contrary, it was certainly, in the main, hordes coming on from the East that lent new strength to the almost extinguished German resistance on the Rhine; it is not improbable that the powerful Semnones, in earlier times dwelling on the middle Elbe, of whom there is no further mention after the end of the second century, furnished a strong contingent to the Alamanni."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 4.

"The standard quotation respecting the derivation of the name from 'al'='all' and m-n= man', so that the word (somewhat exceptionably) denotes 'men of all sorts,' is from Agathias, who quotes Asinius Quadratus. … Notwithstanding this, I think it is an open question, whether the name may not have been applied by the truer and more unequivocal Germans of Suabia and Franconia, to certain less definitely Germanic allies from Wurtemberg and Baden,—parts of the Decumates Agri—parts which may have supplied a Gallic, a Gallo-Roman, or even a Slavonic element to the confederacy; in which case, a name so German as to have given the present French and Italian name for Germany, may, originally, have applied to a population other than Germanic. I know the apparently paradoxical elements in this view; but I also know that, in the way of etymology, it is quite as safe to translate 'all' by 'alii' as by 'omnes': and I cannot help thinking that the 'al-' in Ale-manni is the 'al-' in 'alir-arto' (a foreigner or man of another sort), 'eli-benzo' (an alien), and 'ali-land' (captivity in foreign land).—Grimm, ii. 628.—Rechsalterth, page 359. And still more satisfied am I that the 'al-' in Al-emanni is the 'al-' in Alsatia='el-sass'='ali-satz'='foreign settlement.' In other words, the prefix in question is more probably the 'al-' in 'el-se', than the 'al-' in 'all.' Little, however, of importance turns on this. The locality of the Alemanni was the parts about the Limes Romanus, a boundary which, in the time of Alexander Severus, Niebuhr thinks they first broke through. Hence they were the Marchmen of the frontier, whoever those Marchmen were. Other such Marchmen were the Suevi; unless, indeed, we consider the two names as synonymous. Zeuss admits that, between the Suevi of Suabia, and the Alemanni, no tangible difference can be found."

R. G. Lathan, The Germania of Tacitus; Epilegomena, section 11.

ALSO IN T. Smith, Arminius, part 2, chapter 1.

See also, SUEVI, and BAVARIANS.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 259.
   Invasion of Gaul and Italy.

The Alemanni, "hovering on the frontiers of the Empire … increased the general disorder that ensued after the death of Decius. They inflicted severe wounds on the rich provinces of Gaul; they were the first who removed the veil that covered the feeble majesty of Italy. A numerous body of the Alemanni penetrated across the Danube and through the Rhætian Alps into the plains of Lombardy, advanced as far as Ravenna and displayed the victorious banners of barbarians almost in sight of Rome [A. D. 259]. The insult and the danger rekindled in the senate some sparks of their ancient virtue. Both the Emperors were engaged in far distant wars—Valerian in the East and Galienus on the Rhine." The senators, however, succeeded in confronting the audacious invaders with a force which checked their advance, and they "retired into Germany laden with spoil."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 10.


ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.
   Invasion of Italy.

Italy was invaded by the Alemanni, for the second time, in the reign of Anrelian, A. D. 270. They ravaged the provinces from the Danube to the Po, and were retreating, laden with spoils, when the vigorous Emperor intercepted them, on the banks of the former river. Half the host was permitted to cross the Danube; the other half was surprised and surrounded. But these last, unable to regain their own country, broke through the Roman lines at their rear and sped into Italy again, spreading havoc as they went. It was only after three great battles,—one near Placentia, in which the Romans were almost beaten, another on the Metaurus (where Hasdrubal was defeated), and a third near Pavia,—that the Germanic invaders were destroyed.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 11.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 355-361.
   Repulse by Julian.

See GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 365-367.
   Invasion of Gaul.

The Alemanni invaded Gaul in 365, committing widespread ravages and carrying away into the forests of Germany great spoil and many captives. The next winter they crossed the Rhine, again, in still greater numbers, defeated the Roman forces and captured the standards of the Herulian and Batavian auxiliaries. But Valentinian was now Emperor, and he adopted energetic measures. His lieutenant Jovinus overcame the invaders in a great battle fought near Chalons and drove them back to their own side of the river boundary. Two years later, the Emperor, himself, passed the Rhine and inflicted a memorable chastisement on the Alemanni. At the same time he strengthened the frontier defences, and, by diplomatic arts, fomented quarrels between the Alemanni and their neighbors, the Burgundians, which weakened both.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 25.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 378.
   Defeat by Gratian.

On learning that the young Emperor Gratian was preparing to lead the military force of Gaul and the West to the help of his uncle and colleague, Valens, against the Goths, the Alemanni swarmed across the Rhine into Gaul. Gratian instantly recalled the legions that were marching to Pannonia and encountered the German invaders in a great battle fought near Argentaria (modern Colmar) in the month of May, A. D. 378. The Alemanni were routed with such slaughter that no more than 5,000 out of 40,000 to 70,000, are said to have escaped. Gratian afterwards crossed the Rhine and humbled his troublesome neighbors in their own country.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 26.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.
   Overthrow by the Franks.

"In the year 496 A. D. the Salians [Salian Franks] began that career of conquest which they followed up with scarcely any intermission until the death of their warrior king. The Alemanni, extending themselves from their original seats on the right bank of the Rhine, between the Main and the Danube, had pushed forward into Germanica Prima, where they came into collision with the Frankish subjects of King Sigebert of Cologne. Clovis flew to the assistance of his kinsman and defeated the Alemanni in a great battle in the neighbourhood of Zülpich [called, commonly, the battle of Tolbiac]. He then established a considerable number of his Franks in the territory of the Alemanni, the traces of whose residence are found in the names of Franconia and Frankfort."

V. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 2.

"Clovis had been intending to cross the Rhine, but the hosts of the Alamanni came upon him, as it seems, unexpectedly and forced a battle on the left bank of the river. He seemed to be overmatched, and the horror of an impending defeat overshadowed the Frankish king. Then, in his despair, he bethought himself of the God of Clotilda [his queen, a Burgundian Christian princess, of the orthodox or Catholic faith]. Raising his eyes to heaven, he said: 'Oh Jesus Christ, whom Clotilda declares to be the Son of the living God, who art said to give help to those who are in trouble and who trust in Thee, I humbly beseech Thy succour! I have called on my gods and they are far from my help. If Thou wilt deliver me from mine enemies, I will believe in Thee, and be baptised in Thy name.' At this moment, a sudden change was seen in the fortunes of the Franks. The Alamanni began to waver, they turned, they fled. Their king, according to one account was slain; and the nation seems to have accepted Clovis as its over-lord." The following Christmas day Clovis was baptised at Reims and 3,000 of his warriors followed the royal example. "In the early years of the new century, probably about 503 or 504, Clovis was again at war with his old enemies, the Alamanni. … Clovis moved his army into their territories and won a victory much more decisive, though less famous than that of 496. This time the angry king would make no such easy terms as he had done before. From their pleasant dwellings by the Main and the Neckar, from all the valley of the Middle Rhine, the terrified Alamanni were forced to flee. Their place was taken by Frankish settlers, from whom all this district received in the Middle Ages the name of the Duchy of Francia, or, at a rather later date, that of the Circle of Franconia. The Alamanni, with their wives and children, a broken and dispirited host, moved southward to the shores of the Lake of Constance and entered the old Roman province of Rhætia. Here they were on what was held to be, in a sense, Italian ground; and the arm of Theodoric, as ruler of Italy, as successor to the Emperors of the West, was stretched forth to protect them. … Eastern Switzerland, Western Tyrol, Southern Baden and Würtemberg and Southwestern Bavaria probably formed this new Alamannis, which will figure in later history as the 'Ducatus Alamanniæ,' or the Circle of Swabia."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 4, chapter 9.

ALSO IN P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul, book 3, chapter 11.

      See, also, SUEVI: A. D. 460-500;
      and FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 528-729.
   Struggles against the Frank Dominion.

See GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 547.
   Final subjection to the Franks.

See BAVARIA: A. D. 547.


ALEPPO: A. D. 638-969. Taken by the Arab followers of Mahomet in 638, this city was recovered by the Byzantines in 969.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 963-1025.

ALEPPO: A. D. 1260.
   Destruction by the Mongols.

The Mongols, under Khulagu, or Houlagou, brother of Mangu Khan, having overrun Mesopotamia and extinguished the Caliphate at Bagdad, crossed the Euphrates in the spring of 1260 and advanced to Aleppo. The city was taken after a siege of seven days and given up for five days to pillage and slaughter. "When the carnage ceased, the streets were cumbered with corpses. … It is said that 100,000 women and children were sold as slaves. The walls of Aleppo were razed, its mosques destroyed, and its gardens ravaged." Damascus submitted and was spared. Khulagu was meditating, it is said, the conquest of Jerusalem, when news of the death of the Great Khan called him to the East.

H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, pages 209-211.

ALEPPO: A. D. 1401.
   Sack and Massacre by Timour.


ALESIA, Siege of, by Cæsar.

See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

ALESSANDRIA: The creation of the city (1168).

See ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.



  ALEXANDER the Great, B. C. 334-323.
  Conquests and Empire.

See MACEDONIA, &c., B. C. 334-330, and after.

Alexander, King of Poland, A. D. 1501-1507.

  Alexander, Prince of Bulgaria.
  Abduction and Abdication.

See BULGARIA: A. D. 1878-1886.

Alexander I., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1801-1825.

Alexander I., King of Scotland, A. D. 1107-1124.

Alexander II., Pope, A. D. 1061-1073.

Alexander II., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1855-1881.

Alexander II., King of Scotland, A. D. 1214-1249.

Alexander III., Pope, A. D. 1159-1181.

Alexander III., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1881-.

Alexander III., King of Scotland, A. D. 1249-1286.

Alexander IV., Pope, A. D. 1254-1261.

Alexander V., Pope, A. D. 1409-1410 (elected by the Council of Pisa).

Alexander VI., Pope, A. D. 1492-1503.

Alexander VII., Pope, A. D. 1655-1667.

Alexander VIII., Pope, A. D. 1689-1691.

Alexander Severus, Roman Emperor, A. D. 222-235.

   The Founding of the City.

"When Alexander reached the Egyptian military station at the little town or village of Rhakotis, he saw with the quick eye of a great commander how to turn this petty settlement into a great city, and to make its roadstead, out of which ships could be blown by a change of wind, into a double harbour roomy enough to shelter the navies of the world. All that was needed was to join the island by a mole to the continent. The site was admirably secure and convenient, a narrow strip of land between the Mediterranean and the great inland Lake Mareotis. The whole northern side faced the two harbours, which were bounded east and west by the mole, and beyond by the long, narrow rocky island of Pharos, stretching parallel with the coast. On the south was the inland port of Lake Mareotis. The length of the city was more than three miles, the breadth more than three-quarters of a mile; the mole was above three-quarters of a mile long and six hundred feet broad; its breadth is now doubled, owing to the silting up of the sand. Modern Alexandria until lately only occupied the mole, and was a great town in a corner of the space which Alexander, with large provision for the future, measured out. The form of the new city was ruled by that of the site, but the fancy of Alexander designed it in the shape of a Macedonian cloak or chlamys, such as a national hero wears on the coins of the kings of Macedon, his ancestors. The situation is excellent for commerce. Alexandria, with the best Egyptian harbour on the Mediterranean, and the inland port connected with the Nile streams and canals, was the natural emporium of the Indian trade. Port Said is superior now, because of its grand artificial port and the advantage for steamships of an unbroken sea route."

R. S. Poole, Cities of Egypt, chapter 12.

      See, also, MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 334-330;
      and EGYPT: B. C. 332.

ALEXANDRIA: Reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, B. C. 282-246.
   Greatness and splendor of the City.
   Its Commerce.
   Its Libraries.
   Its Museum.
   Its Schools.

Ptolemy Philadelphus, son of Ptolemy Soter, succeeded to the throne of Egypt in 282 B. C. when his father retired from it in his favor, and reigned until 246 B. C. "Alexandria, founded by the great conqueror, increased and beautified by Ptolemy Soter, was now far the greatest city of Alexander's Empire. It was the first of those new foundations which are a marked feature in Hellenism; there were many others of great size and importance—above all, Antioch, then Seleucia on the Tigris, then Nicomedia, Nicæa, Apamea, which lasted; besides such as Lysimacheia, Antigoneia, and others, which early disappeared. … Alexandria was the model for all the rest. The intersection of two great principal thoroughfares, adorned with colonnades for the footways, formed the centre point, the omphalos of the city. The other streets were at right angles with these thoroughfares, so that the whole place was quite regular. Counting its old part, Rhakotis, which was still the habitation of native Egyptians, Alexandria had five quarters, one at least devoted to Jews who had originally settled there in great numbers. The mixed population there of Macedonians, Greeks, Jews, and Egyptians gave a peculiarly complex and variable character to the population. Let us not forget the vast number of strangers from all parts of the world whom trade and politics brought there. It was the great mart where the wealth of Europe and of Asia changed hands. Alexander had opened the sea-way by exploring the coasts of Media and Persia. Caravans from the head of the Persian Gulf, and ships on the Red Sea, brought all the wonders of Ceylon and China, as well as of Further India, to Alexandria. There, too, the wealth of Spain and Gaul, the produce of Italy and Macedonia, the amber of the Baltic and the salt fish of Pontus, the silver of Spain and the copper of Cyprus, the timber of Macedonia and Crete, the pottery and oil of Greece—a thousand imports from all the Mediterranean—came to be exchanged for the spices of Arabia, the splendid birds and embroideries of India and Ceylon, the gold and ivory of Africa, the antelopes, the apes, the leopards, the elephants of tropical climes. Hence the enormous wealth of the Lagidæ, for in addition to the marvellous fertility and great population—it is said to have been seven millions—of Egypt, they made all the profits of this enormous carrying trade. {38} We gain a good idea of what the splendours of the capital were by the very full account preserved to us by Athenæus of the great feast which inaugurated the reign of Philadelphus. … All this seems idle pomp, and the doing of an idle sybarite. Philadelphus was anything but that. … It was he who opened up the Egyptian trade with Italy, and made Puteoli the great port for ships from Alexandria, which it remained for centuries. It was he who explored Ethiopia and the southern parts of Africa, and brought back not only the curious fauna to his zoological gardens, but the first knowledge of the Troglodytes for men of science. The cultivation of science and of letters too was so remarkably one of his pursuits that the progress of the Alexandria of his day forms an epoch in the world's history, and we must separate his University and its professors from this summary, and devote to them a separate section. … The history of the organization of the University and its staff is covered with almost impenetrable mist. For the Museum and Library were in the strictest sense what we should now call an University, and one, too, of the Oxford type, where learned men were invited to take Fellowships, and spend their learned leisure close to observatories in science, and a great library of books. Like the mediæval universities, this endowment of research naturally turned into an engine for teaching, as all who desired knowledge flocked to such a centre, and persuaded the Fellow to become a Tutor. The model came from Athens. There the schools, beginning with the Academy of Plato, had a fixed property—a home with its surrounding garden, and in order to make this foundation sure, it was made a shrine where the Muses were worshipped, and where the head of the school, or a priest appointed, performed stated sacrifices. This, then, being held in trust by the successors of the donor, who bequeathed it; to them, was a property which it would have been sacrilegious to invade, and so the title Museum arose for a school of learning. Demetrius the Phalerean, the friend and protector of Theophrastus, brought this idea with him to Alexandria, when his namesake drove him into exile [see GREECE: B. C. 307-197] and it was no doubt his advice to the first Ptolemy which originated the great foundation, though Philadelphus, who again exiled Demetrius, gets the credit of it. The pupil of Aristotle moreover impressed on the king the necessity of storing up in one central repository all that the world knew or could produce, in order to ascertain the laws of things from a proper analysis of detail. Hence was founded not only the great library, which in those days had a thousand times the value a great library has now, but also observatories, zoological gardens, collections of exotic plants, and of other new and strange things brought by exploring expeditions from the furthest regions of Arabia and Africa. This library and museum proved indeed a home for the Muses, and about it a most brilliant group of students in literature and science was formed. The successive librarians were Zenodotus, the grammarian or critic; Callimachus, to whose poems we shall presently return; Eratosthenes, the astronomer, who originated the process by which the size of the earth is determined to-day; Appollonius the Rhodian, disciple and enemy of Callimachus; Aristophanes of Byzantium, founder of a school of philological criticism; and Aristarchus of Samos, reputed to have been the greatest critic of ancient times. The study of the text of Homer was the chief labour of Zenodotus, Aristophanes, and Aristarchus, and it was Aristarchus who mainly fixed the form in which the Iliad and Odyssey remain to this day. … The vast collections of the library and museum actually determined the whole character of the literature of Alexandria. One word sums it all up—erudition, whether in philosophy, in criticism, in science, even in poetry. Strange to say, they neglected not only oratory, for which there was no scope, but history, and this we may attribute to the fact that history before Alexander had no charms for Hellenism. Mythical lore, on the other hand, strange uses and curious words, were departments of research dear to them. In science they did great things, so did they in geography. … But were they original in nothing? Did they add nothing of their own to the splendid record of Greek literature? In the next generation came the art of criticism, which Aristarchus developed into a real science, and of that we may speak in its place; but even in this generation we may claim for them the credit of three original, or nearly original, developments in literature—the pastoral idyll, as we have it in Theocritus; the elegy, as we have it in the Roman imitators of Philetas and Callimachus; and the romance, or love story, the parent of our modern novels. All these had early prototypes in the folk songs of Sicily, in the love songs of Mimnermus and of Antimachus, in the tales of Miletus, but still the revival was fairly to be called original. Of these the pastoral idyll was far the most remarkable, and laid hold upon the world for ever."

J. P. Mahaffy, The Story of Alexander's Empire, chapter 13-14.

   "There were two Libraries of Alexandria under the Ptolemies,
   the larger one in the quarter called the Bruchium, and the
   smaller one, named 'the daughter,' in the Serapeum, which was
   situated in the quarter called Rhacotis. The former was
   totally destroyed in the conflagration of the Bruchium during
   Cæsar's Alexandrian War [see below: B. C. 48-47]; but the
   latter, which was of great value, remained uninjured (see
   Matter, Histoire de l'École d'Alexandrie, volume 1, page 133
   seg., 237 seq.)
It is not stated by any ancient writer
   where the collection of Pergamus [see PERGAMUM] was placed,
   which Antony gave to Cleopatra (Plutarch, Anton., c. 58); but
   it is most probable that it was deposited in the Bruchium, as
   that quarter of the city was now without a library, and the
   queen was anxious to repair the ravages occasioned by the
   civil war. If this supposition is correct, two Alexandrian
   libraries continued to exist after the time of Cæsar, and this
   is rendered still more probable by the fact that during the
   first three centuries of the Christian era the Bruchium was
   still the literary quarter of Alexandria. But a great change
   took place in the time of Aurelian. This Emperor, in
   suppressing the revolt of Firmus in Egypt, A. D. 273 [see
   below: A. D. 273] is said to have destroyed the Bruchium; and
   though this statement is hardly to be taken literally, the
   Bruchium ceased from this time to be included within the walls
   of Alexandria, and was regarded only as a suburb of the city.
   Whether the great library in the Bruchium with the museum and
   its other literary establishments, perished at this time, we
   do not know; but the Serapeum for the next century takes its
   place as the literary quarter of Alexandria, and becomes the
   chief library in the city. Hence later writers erroneously
   speak of the Serapeum as if it had been from the beginning the
   great Alexandrian library. … Gibbon seems to think that the
   whole of the Serapeum was destroyed [A. D. 389, by order of
   the Emperor Theodosius—see below]; but this was not the case.
   It would appear that it was only the sanctuary of the god that
   was levelled with the ground, and that the library, the halls
   and other buildings in the consecrated ground remained
   standing long afterwards."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 28. Notes by Dr. William Smith.

   Concerning the reputed final destruction of the Library by the

See below: A. D. 641-646.

ALSO IN O. Delepierre, Historical Difficulties, chapter 3.

S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapters 7, 8 and 12.


ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.
   Cæsar and Cleopatra.
   The Rising against the Romans.
   The Siege.
   Destruction of the great Library.
   Roman victory.

From the battle field of Pharsalia (see ROME: B. C. 48) Pompeius fled to Alexandria in Egypt; and was treacherously murdered as he stepped on shore. Cæsar arrived a few days afterwards, in close pursuit, and shed tears, it is said, on being shown his rival's mangled head. He had brought scarcely more than 3,000 of his soldiers with him, and he found Egypt in a turbulent state of civil war. The throne was in dispute between children of the late king, Ptolemæus Auletes. Cleopatra, the elder daughter, and Ptolemæus, a son, were at war with one another, and Arsinoë, a younger daughter, was ready to put forward claims (see EGYPT: B. C. 80-48). Notwithstanding the insignificance of his force, Cæsar did not hesitate to assume to occupy Alexandria and to adjudicate the dispute. But the fascinations of Cleopatra (then twenty years of age) soon made him her partisan, and her scarcely disguised lover. This aggravated the irritation which was caused in Alexandria by the presence of Cæsar's troops, and a furious rising of the city was provoked. He fortified himself in the great palace, which he had taken possession of, and which commanded the causeway to the island, Pharos, thereby commanding the port. Destroying a large part of the city in that neighborhood, he made his position exceedingly strong. At the same time he seized and burned the royal fleet, and thus caused a conflagration in which the greater of the two priceless libraries of Alexandria—the library of the Museum—was, much of it, consumed. [See above: B. C. 282-246.] By such measures Cæsar withstood, for several months, a siege conducted on the part of the Alexandrians with great determination and animosity. It was not until March, B. C. 47, that he was relieved from his dangerous situation, by the arrival of a faithful ally, in the person of Mithridates, king of Pergamus, who led an army into Egypt, reduced Pelusium, and crossed the Nile at the head of the Delta. Ptolemæus advanced with his troops to meet this new invader and was followed and overtaken by Cæsar. In the battle which then occurred the Egyptian army was utterly routed and Ptolemæus perished in the Nile. Cleopatra was then married, after the Egyptian fashion, to a younger brother, and established on the throne, while Arsinoë was sent a prisoner to Rome.

A. Hirtius, The Alexandrian War.

ALSO IN G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 5, chapter 20.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 18.

      S. Sharpe,
      History of Egypt,
      chapter 12.

   Destruction of the Jews.

See JEWS: A. D. 116.

   Massacre by Caracalla.

"Caracalla was the common enemy of mankind. He left the capital (and he never returned to it) about a year after the murder of Geta [A. D. 213]. The rest of his reign [four years] was spent in the several provinces of the Empire, particularly those of the East, and every province was, by turns, the scene of his rapine and cruelty. … In the midst of peace, and upon the slightest provocation, he issued his commands at Alexandria, Egypt [A. D. 215], for a general massacre. From a secure post in the temple of Serapis, he viewed and directed the slaughter of many thousand citizens, as well as strangers, without distinguishing either the number or the crime of the sufferers."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 6.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 260-272.
   Tumults of the Third Century.

"The people of Alexandria, a various mixture of nations, united the vanity and inconstancy of the Greeks with the superstition and obstinacy of the Egyptians. The most trifling occasion, a transient scarcity of flesh or lentils, the neglect of an accustomed salutation, a mistake of precedency in the public baths, or even a religious dispute, were at any time sufficient to kindle a sedition among that vast multitude, whose resentments were furious and implacable. After the captivity of Valerian [the Roman Emperor, made prisoner by Sapor, king of Persia, A. D. 260] and the insolence of his son had relaxed the authority of the laws, the Alexandrians abandoned themselves to the ungoverned rage of their passions, and their unhappy country was the theatre of a civil war, which continued (with a few short and suspicious truces) above twelve years. All intercourse was cut off between the several quarters of the afflicted city, every street was polluted with blood, every building of strength converted into a citadel; nor did the tumult subside till a considerable part of Alexandria was irretrievably ruined. The spacious and magnificent district of Bruchion, with its palaces and museum, the residence of the kings and philosophers of Egypt, is described, above a century afterwards, as already reduced to its present state of dreary solitude."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 10.

   Destruction of the Bruchium by Aurelian.

After subduing Palmyra and its Queen Zenobia, A. D. 272, the Emperor Aurelian was called into Egypt to put down a rebellion there, headed by one Firmus, a friend and ally of the Palmyrene queen. Firmus had great wealth, derived from trade, and from the paper-manufacture of Egypt, which was mostly in his hands. He was defeated and put to death. "To Aurelian's war against Firmus, or to that of Probus a little before in Egypt, may be referred the destruction of Bruchium, a great quarter of Alexandria, which according to Ammianus Marcellinus, was ruined under Aurelian and remained deserted everafter."

J. B. L. Crevier, History of the Roman Emperors, book 27.


   Siege by Diocletian.

A general revolt of the African provinces of the Roman Empire occurred A. D. 296. The barbarous tribes of Ethiopia and the desert were brought into alliance with the provincials of Egypt, Cyrenaica, Carthage and Mauritania, and the flame of war was universal. Both the emperors of the time, Diocletian and Maximian, were called to the African field. "Diocletian, on his side, opened the campaign in Egypt by the siege of Alexandria, cut off the aqueducts which conveyed the waters of the Nile into every quarter of that immense city, and, rendering his camp impregnable to the sallies of the besieged multitude, he pushed his reiterated attacks with caution and vigor. After a siege of eight months, Alexandria, wasted by the sword and by fire, implored the clemency of the conqueror, but it experienced the full extent of his severity. Many thousands of the citizens perished in a promiscuous slaughter, and there were few obnoxious persons in Egypt who escaped a sentence either of death or at least of exile. The fate of Busiris and of Coptos was still more melancholy than that of Alexandria; those proud cities … were utterly destroyed."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 13.

   Great Earthquake.


   Destruction of the Serapeum.

"After the edicts of Theodosius had severely prohibited the sacrifices of the pagans, they were still tolerated in the city and temple of Serapis. … The archepiscopal throne of Alexandria was filled by Theophilus, the perpetual enemy of peace and virtue; a bold, bad man, whose hands were alternately polluted with gold and with blood. His pious indignation was excited by the honours of Serapis. … The votaries of Serapis, whose strength and numbers were much inferior to those of their antagonists, rose in arms [A. D. 389] at the instigation of the philosopher Olympius, who exhorted them to die in the defence of the altars of the gods. These pagan fanatics fortified themselves in the temple, or rather fortress, of Serapis; repelled the besiegers by daring sallies and a resolute defence; and, by the inhuman cruelties which they exercised on their Christian prisoners, obtained the last consolation of despair. The efforts of the prudent magistrate were usefully exerted for the establishment of a truce till the answer of Theodosius should determine the fate of Serapis." The judgment of the emperor condemned the great temple to destruction and it was reduced to a heap of ruins. "The valuable library of Alexandria was pillaged or destroyed; and, near twenty years afterwards, the appearance of the empty shelves excited the regret and indignation of every spectator whose mind was not totally darkened by religious prejudice."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 28.

Gibbon's statement as to the destruction of the great library in the Serapeum is called in question by his learned annotator, Dr. Smith.

See above: B. C. 282-246.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 413-415.
   The Patriarch Cyril and his Mobs.

"His voice [that of Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, A. D. 412-444] inflamed or appeased the passions of the multitude: his commands were blindly obeyed by his numerous and fanatic parabolani, familiarized in their daily office with scenes of death; and the præfects of Egypt were awed or provoked by the temporal power of these Christian pontiffs. Ardent in the prosecution of heresy, Cyril auspiciously opened his reign by oppressing the Novatians, the most innocent and harmless of the sectaries. … The toleration, and even the privileges of the Jews, who had multiplied to the number of 40,000, were secured by the laws of the Cæsars and Ptolemies, and a long prescription of 700 years since the foundation of Alexandria. Without any legal sentence, without any royal mandate, the patriarch, at the dawn of day, led a seditious multitude to the attack of the synagogues. Unarmed and unprepared, the Jews were incapable of resistance; their houses of prayer were levelled with the ground, and the episcopal warrior, after rewarding his troops with the plunder of their goods, expelled from the city the remnant of the misbelieving nation. Perhaps he might plead the insolence of their prosperity, and their deadly hatred of the Christians, whose blood they had recently shed in a malicious or accidental tumult. Such crimes would have deserved the animadversions of the magistrate; but in this promiscuous outrage the innocent were confounded with the guilty."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 47.

"Before long the adherents of the archbishop were guilty of a more atrocious and unprovoked crime, of the guilt of which a deep suspicion attached to Cyril. All Alexandria respected, honoured, took pride in the celebrated Hypatia. She was a woman of extraordinary learning; in her was centred the lingering knowledge of that Alexandrian Platonism cultivated by Plotinus and his school. Her beauty was equal to her learning; her modesty commended both. … Hypatia lived in great intimacy with the præfect Orestes; the only charge whispered against her was that she encouraged him in his hostility to the patriarch. … Some of Cyril's ferocious partisans seized this woman, dragged her from her chariot, and with the most revolting indecency tore her clothes off and then rent her limb from limb."

H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity, book 2, chapter 3.

      ALSO IN
      C. Kingsley,

   Taken by Chosroes.

See EGYPT: A. D. 616-628.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 641-646.
   The Moslem Conquest.

The precise date of events in the Moslem conquest of Egypt, by Amru, lieutenant of the Caliph Omar, is uncertain. Sir William Muir fixes the first surrender of Alexandria to Amru in A. D. 641. After that it was reoccupied by the Byzantines either once or twice, on occasions of neglect by the Arabs, as they pursued their conquests elsewhere. The probability seems to be that this occurred only once, in 646. It seems also probable, as remarked by Sir W. Muir, that the two sieges on the taking and retaking of the city—641 and 646—have been much confused in the scanty accounts which have come down to us. On the first occasion Alexandria would appear to have been generously treated; while, on the second, it suffered pillage and its fortifications were destroyed. How far there is truth in the commonly accepted story of the deliberate burning of the great Alexandrian Library—or so much of it as had escaped destruction at the hands of Roman generals and Christian patriarchs—is a question still in dispute. Gibbon discredited the story, and Sir William Muir, the latest of students in Mahometan history, declines even the mention of it in his narrative of the conquest of Egypt. But other historians of repute maintain the probable accuracy of the tale told by Abulpharagus—that Caliph Omar ordered the destruction of the Library, on the ground that, if the books in it agreed with the Koran they were useless, if they disagreed with it they were pernicious.



ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 815-823.
   Occupied by piratical Saracens from Spain.

See CRETE: A. D. 823.

   Captured by the French under Bonaparte.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1801-1802.
   Battle of French and English.
   Restoration to the Turks.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

   Surrendered to the English.
   The brief occupation and humiliating capitulation.

See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.

   Bombardment by the English.

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

   Bombardment by the English fleet.
   Massacre of Europeans.

See EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882, and 1882-1883.

—————ALEXANDRIA: End—————



   Occupation by Union troops.
   Murder of Colonel Ellsworth.




ALEXIS, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1645-1676.

ALEXIUS I. (Comnenus),
   Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1081-1118.

   Alexius II. (Comnenus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
   Greek), A. D. 1181-1183.

   Alexius III. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
   Greek), A. D. 1195-1203

   Alexius IV. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
   Greek), A. D. 1203-1204

   Alexius V. (Ducas), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek),
   A. D. 1204.

  ALFONSO I., King of Aragon and Navarre, A. D. 1104-1134

  Alfonso I., King of Castile, A. D. 1072-1109;
    and VI. of Leon, A. D. 1065-1109.

  Alfonso I., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo,
  A. D. 739-757.

Alfonso I., King of Portugal, A. D. 1112-1185.

Alfonso II., King of Aragon, A D. 1163-1196.

Alfonso II., King of Castile, A. D. 1126-1157.

Alfonso II., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 791-842.

Alfonso II., King of Naples, A. D. 1494-1495.

Alfonso II., King of Portugal, A. D. 1211-1223.

Alfonso III., King of Aragon, A. D. 1285-1291.

Alfonso III., King of Castile, A. D. 1158-1214.

Alfonso III., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 866-910.

Alfonso III., King of Portugal, A. D. 1244-1279.

Alfonso IV., King of Aragon, A. D. 1327-1336.

Alfonso IV., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 925-930.

Alfonso IV., King of Portugal, A. D. 1323-1357.

  Alfonso V., King of Aragon and I. of Sicily, A. D. 1416-1458;
  I. of Naples, A. D. 1443-1458.

  Alfonso V., King of Leon and the Asturias,
  or Oviedo, A. D. 9919-1027.

Alfonso V., King of Portugal, A. D. 1438-1481.

Alfonso VI., King of Portugal, A. D., 1656-1667.

Alfonso VII., King of Leon, A. D. 1109-1126.

Alfonso VIII., King of Leon, A. D. 1126-1157.

Alfonso IX., King of Leon, A. D. 1188-1230.

Alfonso X., King of Leon and Castile, A. D. 1252-1284.

Alfonso XI., King of Leon and Castile, A. D. 1312-1350.

Alfonso XII., King of Spain, A. D. 1874-1885.

ALFORD, Battle of (A. D. 1645).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

ALFRED, called the Great, King of Wessex, A. D. 871-901.


"The term Algiers literally signifies 'the island,' and was derived from the original construction of its harbour, one side of which was separated from the land."

M. Russell, History of the Barbary States, page 314.

For history, see BARBARY STATES.


The term by which a war is proclaimed among the Mahometans to be a Holy War.





ALHAMA, The taking of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

ALHAMBRA, The building of the.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.

ALI, Caliph, A. D. 655-661.

ALIA, Battle of the (B. C. 390).

See ROME: B. C. 390-347.





ALIGARH, Battle of (1803).

See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

ALIWAL, Battle of (1846).

See INDIA: A D. 1845-1849.

ALJUBAROTA, Battle of (1385).

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1383-1385, and SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

ALKMAAR, Siege by the Spaniards and successful defense (1573).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.

ALKMAR, Battle of.


"ALL THE TALENTS," The Ministry of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806, and 1806-1812.




The French name for Germany, derived from the confederation of the Alemanni.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

ALLEN, Ethan, and the Green Mountain Boys.

See VERMONT, A. D. 1749-1774.

And the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga.


ALLERHEIM, Battle of (or Second battle of Nördlingen,—1645.)

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

ALLERTON Isaac, and the Plymouth Colony.

See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH): A. D. 1623-1629. and after.

ALLIANCE, The Farmers'.



ALLOBROGES, Conquest of the.

The Allobroges (see ÆDUI; also GAULS) having sheltered the chiefs of the Salyes, when the latter succumbed to the Romans, and having refused to deliver them up, the proconsul Cn. Domitius marched his army toward their country, B. C. 121. The Allobroges advanced to meet him and were defeated at Vindalium, near the junction of the Sorgues with the Rhone, and not far from Avignon, having 20,000 men slain and 3,000 taken prisoners. The Arverni, who were the allies of the Allobroges, then took the field, crossing the Cevennes mountains and the river Rhone with a vast host, to attack the small Roman army of 30,000 men, which had passed under the command of Q. Fabius Maximus Æmilianus. On the 8th of August, B. C. 121, the Gaulish horde encountered the legions of Rome, at a point near the junction of the Isere and the Rhone, and were routed with such enormous slaughter that 150,000 are said to have been slain or drowned. This battle settled the fate of the Allobroges, who surrendered to Rome without further struggle; but the Arverni were not pursued. The final conquest of that people was reserved for Cæsar.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 1, chapter 21.

ALMA, Battle of the.


ALMAGROS AND PIZARROS, The quarrel of the.

See PERU: A. D. 1533-1548.

ALMANZA, Battle of (A. D. 1707).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1707.

ALMENARA, Battle of (A. D. 1710).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.


The empire of the Almoravides, in Morocco and Spain, which originated in a Moslem missionary movement, was overturned in the middle of the twelfth century by a movement of somewhat similar nature. The agitating cause of the revolution was a religious teacher named Mahomet ben Abdallah, who rose in the reign of Ali (successor to the great Almoravide prince, Joseph), who gained the odor of sanctity at Morocco and who took the title of Al Mehdi, or El Mahdi, the Leader, "giving himself out for the person whom many Mahometans expect under that title. As before, the sect grew into an army, and the army grew into an empire. The new dynasty were called Almohades from Al Mehdi, and by his appointment a certain Abdelmumen was elected Caliph and Commander of the Faithful. Under his vigorous guidance the new kingdom rapidly grew, till the Almohades obtained quite the upper hand in Africa, and in 1146 they too passed into Spain. Under Abdelmumen and his successors, Joseph and Jacob Almansor, the Almohades entirely supplanted the Almoravides, and became more formidable foes than they had been to the rising Christian powers. Jacob Almansor won in 1195 the terrible battle of Alarcos against Alfonso of Castile, and carried his conquests deep into that kingdom. His fame spread through the whole Moslem world. … With Jacob Almansor perished the glory of the Almohade. His successor, Mahomet, lost in 1211 [June 16] the great battle of Alacab or Tolosa against Alfonso, and that day may be said to have decided the fate of Mahometanism in Spain. The Almohade dynasty gradually declined. … The Almohades, like the Ommiads and the Almoravides, vanish from history amidst a scene of confusion the details of which it were hopeless to attempt to remember."

E. A. Freeman, History and Conquests of the Saracens, lecture 5.

ALSO IN H. Coppée, Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors, book 8, chapter 4

See, also, SPAIN. A. D. 1146-1232.

ALMONACID, Battle of.



During the confusions of the 11th century in the Moslem world, a missionary from Kairwan—one Abdallah—preaching the faith of Islam to a wild tribe in Western North Africa, created a religious movement which "naturally led to a political one." "The tribe now called themselves Almoravides, or more properly Morabethah, which appears to mean followers of the Marabout or religious teacher. Abdallah does not appear to have himself claimed more than a religious authority, but their princes Zachariah and Abu Bekr were completely guided by his counsels. After his death Abu Bekr founded in 1070 the city of Morocco. There he left as his lieutenant his cousin Joseph, who grew so powerful that Abu Bekr, by a wonderful exercise of moderation, abdicated in his favour, to avoid a probable civil war. This Joseph, when he had become lord of most part of Western Africa, was requested, or caused himself to be requested, to assume the title of Emir al Momenin, Commander of the Faithful. As a loyal subject of the Caliph of Bagdad, he shrank from such sacrilegious usurpation, but he did not scruple to style himself Emir Al Muslemin, Commander of the Moslems. … The Almoravide Joseph passed over into Spain, like another Tarik; he vanquished Alfonso [the Christian prince of the rising kingdom of Castile] at Zalacca [Oct. 23, A. D. 1086] and then converted the greater portion of Mahometan Spain into an appendage to his own kingdom of Morocco. The chief portion to escape was the kingdom of Zaragossa, the great out-post of the Saracens in northeastern Spain. … The great cities of Andalusia were all brought under a degrading submission to the Almoravides. Their dynasty however was not of long duration, and it fell in turn [A. D. 1147] before one whose origin was strikingly similar to their own" [the Almohades].

E. A. Freeman, History and Conquests of the Saracens, lecture 5.

ALSO IN H. Coppée, Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors, book 8, chapter 2 and 4.



"It may be questioned whether any etymological connexion exists between the words odal and alod, but their signification applied to land is the same: the alod is the hereditary estate derived from primitive occupation; for which the owner owes no service except the personal obligation to appear in the host and in the council. … The land held in full ownership might be either an ethel, an inherited or otherwise acquired portion of original allotment; or an estate created by legal process out of public land. Both these are included in the more common term alod; but the former looks for its evidence in the pedigree of its owner or in the witness of the community, while the latter can produce the charter or· book by which it is created, and is called bocland. As the primitive allotments gradually lost their historical character, as the primitive modes of transfer became obsolete, and the use of written records took their place, the ethel is lost sight of in the bookland. All the land that is not so accounted for is folcland, or public land."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 3, section 24, and chapter 5, section 36.


"Alodial lands are commonly opposed to beneficiary or feudal; the former being strictly proprietary, while the latter depended upon a superior. In this sense the word is of continual recurrence in ancient histories, laws and instruments. It sometimes, however, bears the sense of inheritance. … Hence, in the charters of the eleventh century, hereditary fiefs are frequently termed alodia."

H. Hallam, Middle Ages, chapter 2, part 1, note.

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

See, also, FOLCLAND.

ALP ARSLAN, Seljouk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1063-1073.



   The Name.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

ALSACE: A. D. 843-870.
   Included in the Kingdom of Lorraine.

See LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.

ALSACE: 10th Century.
   Joined to the Empire.

See LORRAINE: A. D. 911-980.

ALSACE: 10th Century.
   Origin of the House of Hapsburg.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.

ALSACE: A. D. 1525.
   Revolt of the Peasants.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.

ALSACE: A. D. 1621-1622.
   Invasions by Mansfeld and his predatory army.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

ALSACE: A. D. 1636-1639.
   Invasion and conquest by Duke Bernhard of Weimar.
   Richelieu's appropriation of the conquest for France.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

ALSACE: A. D. 1648.
   Cession to France in the Peace of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

ALSACE: A. D. 1659.
   Renunciation of the claims of the King of Spain.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

ALSACE: A. D. 1674-1678.
   Ravaged in the Campaigns of Turenne and Condé.

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

ALSACE: A. D. 1679-1681.
   Complete Absorption in France.
   Assumption of entire Sovereignty by Louis XIV.
   Encroachments of the Chamber of Reannexation.
   Seizure of Strasburg.
   Overthrow of its independence as an Imperial City.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

ALSACE: A. D. 1744.
   Invasion by the Austrians.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.

ALSACE: A. D. 1871.
   Ceded to the German Empire by France.


ALSACE: 1871-1879.
   Organization of government as a German Impanel Province.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1879.

—————ALSACE: End—————

   Upper California.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781.

ALTENHElM, Battle of (A. D. 1675).

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

ALTENHOVEN, Battle of (1793).




Also, NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100;





See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1142-1152.

ALTONA: A. D. 1713.
   Burned by the Swedes.


ALTOPASCIO, Battle of (1325).

See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.


See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568 to 1573-1574.

AMADEO, King of Spain, A. D. 1871-1873.



AMALASONTHA, Queen of the Ostrogoths.

See ROME: A. D. 535-553.


"The Amalekites were usually regarded as a branch of the Edomites or 'Red-skins'. Amalek, like Kenaz, the father of the Kenizzites or 'Hunters,' was the grandson of Esau (Gen. 36: 12, 16). He thus belonged to the group of nations,—Edomites, Ammonites, and Moabites,—who stood in a relation of close kinship to Israel. But they had preceded the Israelites in dispossessing the older inhabitants of the land, and establishing themselves in their place. The Edomites had partly destroyed, partly amalgamated the Horites of Mount Seir (Deuteronomy 2: 12); the Moabites had done the same to the Emim, 'a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim' (Deuteronomy 2: 10), while the Ammonites had extirpated and succeeded to the Rephaim or 'Giants,' who in that part of the country were termed Zamzummim (Deuteronomy 2: 20; Gen. 14: 5). Edom however stood in a closer relation to Israel than its two more northerly neighbours. … Separate from the Edomites or Amalekites were the Kenites or wandering 'smiths.' They formed an important Guild in an age when the art of metallurgy was confined to a few. In the time of Saul we hear of them as camping among the Amalekites (1. Samuel 15: 6.) … The Kenites … did not constitute a race, or even a tribe. They were, at most, a caste. But they had originally come, like the Israelites or the Edomites, from those barren regions of Northern Arabia which were peopled by the Menti of the Egyptian inscriptions. Racially, therefore, we may regard them as allied to the descendants of Abraham. While the Kenites and Amalekites were thus Semitic in their origin, the Hivites or 'Villagers' are specially associated with Amorites."

A. H. Sayce, Races of the Old Testament, chapter 6.

ALSO IN H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 1, section 4.

See, also, ARABIA.


"It was the singular fate of this city to have filled up the interval between two periods of civilization, in neither of which she was destined to be distinguished. Scarcely known before the end of the sixth century, Amalfi ran a brilliant career, as a free and trading republic [see ROME: A. D. 554-800], which was checked by the arms of a conqueror in the middle of the twelfth. … There must be, I suspect, some exaggeration about the commerce and opulence of Amalfi, in the only age when she possessed any at all."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 9, part 1, with note.


"Amalfi and Atrani lie close together in two … ravines, the mountains almost arching over them, and the sea washing their very house-walls. … It is not easy to imagine the time when Amalfi and Atrani were one town, with docks and arsenals and harbourage for their associated fleets, and when these little communities were second in importance to no naval power of Christian Europe. The Byzantine Empire lost its hold on Italy during the eighth century; and after this time the history of Calabria is mainly concerned with the republics of Naples and Amalfi, their conflict with the Lombard dukes of Benevento, their opposition to the Saracens, and their final subjugation by the Norman conquerors of Sicily. Between the year 839 A. D., when Amalfi freed itself from the control of Naples and the yoke of Benevento, and the year 1131, when Roger of Hauteville incorporated the republic in his kingdom of the Two Sicilies, this city was the foremost naval and commercial port of Italy. The burghers of Amalfi elected their own doge; founded the Hospital of Jerusalem, whence sprang the knightly order of S. John; gave their name to the richest quarter in Palermo; and owned trading establishments or factories in all the chief cities of the Levant. Their gold coinage of 'tari' formed the standard of currency before the Florentines had stamped the lily and S. John upon the Tuscan florin. Their shipping regulations supplied Europe with a code of maritime laws. Their scholars, in the darkest depths of the dark ages, prized and conned a famous copy of the Pandects of Justinian, and their seamen deserved the fame of having first used, if they did not actually invent, the compass. … The republic had grown and flourished on the decay of the Greek Empire. When the hard-handed race of Hauteville absorbed the heritage of Greeks and Lombards and Saracens in Southern Italy [see ITALY (Southern): A. D. 1000-1090], these adventurers succeeded in annexing Amalfi. But it was not their interest to extinguish the state. On the contrary, they relied for assistance upon the navies and the armies of the little commonwealth. New powers had meanwhile arisen in the North of Italy, who were jealous of rivalry upon the open seas; and when the Neapolitans resisted King Roger in 1135, they called Pisa to their aid, and sent her fleet to destroy Amalfi. The ships of Amalfi were on guard with Roger's navy in the Bay of Naples. The armed citizens were, under Roger's orders, at Aversa. Meanwhile the home of the republic lay defenceless on its mountain-girdled seaboard. The Pisans sailed into the harbour, sacked the city and carried off the famous Pandects of Justinian as a trophy. Two years later they returned, to complete the work of devastation. Amalfi never recovered from the injuries and the humiliation of these two attacks. It was ever thus that the Italians, like the children of the dragon's teeth which Cadmus sowed, consumed each other."

J. A. Symonds, Sketches and Studies in Italy, pages 2-4.


The royal race of the ancient Ostragoths, as the Balthi or Balthings were of the Visigoths, both claiming a descent from the gods.




"The Amazons, daughters of Arês and Harmonia, are both early creations, and frequent reproductions, of the ancient epic. … A nation of courageous, hardy and indefatigable women, dwelling apart from men, permitting only a short temporary intercourse for the purpose of renovating their numbers, and burning out their right breast with a view of enabling themselves to draw the bow freely,—this was at once a general type stimulating to the fancy of the poet, and a theme eminently popular with his hearers. Nor was it at all repugnant to the faith of the latter—who had no recorded facts to guide them, and no other standard of credibility as to the past except such poetical narratives themselves—to conceive communities of Amazons as having actually existed in anterior time. Accordingly we find these warlike females constantly reappearing in the ancient poems, and universally accepted as past realities. In the Iliad, when Priam wishes to illustrate emphatically the most numerous host in which he ever found himself included, he tells us that it was assembled in Phrygia, on the banks of the Sangarius, for the purpose of resisting the formidable Amazons. When Bellerophon is to be employed on a deadly and perilous undertaking, by those who indirectly wish to procure his death, he is despatched against the Amazons. … The Argonautic heroes find the Amazons on the river Thermôdon in their expedition along the southern coast of the Euxine. To the same spot Hêrakles goes to attack them, in the performance of the ninth labour imposed upon him by Eurystheus, for the purpose of procuring the girdle of the Amazonian queen, Hippolyte; and we are told that they had not yet recovered from the losses sustained in this severe aggression when Theseus also assaulted and defeated them, carrying off their queen Antiopê. This injury they avenged by invading Attica … and penetrated even into Athens itself: where the final battle, hard-fought and at one time doubtful, by which Thêseus crushed them, was fought—in the very heart of the city. Attic antiquaries confidently pointed out the exact position of the two contending armies. … No portion of the ante-historical epic appears to have been more deeply worked into the national mind of Greece than this invasion and defeat of the Amazons. … Their proper territory was asserted to be the town and plain of Themiskyra, near the Grecian colony of Amisus, on the river Thermôdon [northern Asia Minor], a region called after their name by Roman historians and geographers. … Some authors placed them in Libya or Ethiopia."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 11.

AMAZONS RIVER, Discovery and Naming of the.

   The mouth of the great river of South America was discovered
   in 1500 by Pinzon, or Pinçon (see AMERICA: A. D. 1499-1500),
   who called it 'Santa Maria de la Mar Dulce' (Saint Mary of the
   Fresh-Water Sea). "This was the first name given to the river,
   except that older and better one of the Indians, 'Parana,' the
   Sea; afterwards it was Marañon and Rio das Amazonas, from the
   female warriors that were supposed to live near its banks. …
   After Pinçon's time, there were others who saw the fresh-water
   sea, but no one was hardy enough to venture into it. The honor
   of its real discovery was reserved for Francisco de Orellana;
   and he explored it, not from the east, but from the west, in
   one of the most daring voyages that was ever recorded. It was
   accident rather than design that led him to it. After …
   Pizarro had conquered Peru, he sent his brother Gonzalo, with
   340 Spanish soldiers, and 4,000 Indians, to explore the great
   forest east of Quito, 'where there were cinnamon trees.' The
   expedition started late in 1539, and it was two years before
   the starved and ragged survivors returned to Quito. In the
   course of their wanderings they had struck the river Coco;
   building here a brigantine, they followed down the current, a
   part of them in the vessel, a part on shore.
   After a while they met some Indians, who told them of a rich
   country ten days' journey beyond—a country of gold, and with
   plenty of provisions. Gonzalo placed Orellana in command of
   the brigantine, and ordered him, with 50 soldiers, to go on to
   this gold-land, and return with a load of provisions. Orellana
   arrived at the mouth of the Coco in three days, but found no
   provisions; 'and he considered that if he should return with
   this news to Pizarro, he would not reach him in a year, on
   account of the strong current, and that if he remained where
   he was, he would be of no use to the one or to the other. Not
   knowing how long Gonzalo Pizarro would take to reach the
   place, without consulting anyone he set sail and prosecuted
   his voyage onward, intending to ignore Gonzalo, to reach
   Spain, and obtain that government for himself.' Down the Napo
   and the Amazons, for seven months, these Spaniards floated to
   the Atlantic. At times they suffered terribly from hunger:
   'There was nothing to eat but the skins which formed their
   girdles, and the leather of their shoes, boiled with a few
   herbs.' When they did get food they were often obliged to
   fight hard for it; and again they were attacked by thousands
   of naked Indians, who came in canoes against the Spanish
   vessel. At some Indian villages, however, they were kindly
   received and well fed, so they could rest while building a new
   and stronger vessel. … On the 26th of August, 1541, Orellana
   and his men sailed out to the blue water 'without either
   pilot, compass, or anything useful for navigation; nor did
   they know what direction they should take.' Following the
   coast, they passed inside of the island of Trinidad, and so at
   length reached Cubagua in September. From the king of Spain
   Orellana received a grant of the land he had discovered; but
   he died while returning to it, and his company was dispersed.
   It was not a very reliable account of the river that was given
   by Orellana and his chronicler, Padre Carbajal. So Herrera
   tells their story of the warrior females, and very properly
   adds: 'Every reader may believe as much as he likes.'"

H. H. Smith, Brazil, the Amazons, and the Coast, chapter 1.

In chapter 18 of this same work "The Amazon Myth" is discussed at length, with the reports and opinions of numerous travellers, both early and recent, concerning it.—Mr. Southey had so much respect for the memory of Orellana that he made an effort to restore that bold but unprincipled discoverer's name to the great river. "He discarded Maranon, as having too much resemblance to Maranham, and Amazon, as being founded upon fiction and at the same time inconvenient. Accordingly, in his map, and in all his references to the great river he denominates it Orellana. This decision of the poet-laureate of Great Britain has not proved authoritative in Brazil. O Amazonas is the universal appellation of the great river among those who float upon its waters and who live upon its banks. … Pará, the aboriginal name of this river, was more appropriate than any other. It signifies 'the father of waters.' … The origin of the name and mystery concerning the female warriors, I think, has been solved within the last few years by the intrepid Mr. Wallace. … Mr. Wallace, I think, shows conclusively that Friar Gaspar [Carbajal] and his companions saw Indian male warriors who were attired in habiliments such as Europeans would attribute to women. … I am strongly of the opinion that the story of the Amazons has arisen from these feminine-looking warriors encountered by the early voyagers."

J. C. Fletcher and D. P. Kidder, Brazil and the Brazilians, chapter 27.

ALSO IN A. R. Wallace, Travels on the Amazon and Rio Negro, chapter 17.

      R. Southey,
      History of Brazil,
      chapter 4 (volume 1).

   The Zulu War.

      and the same: A. D. 1877-1879.


"The Celtic aristocracy [of Gaul] … developed the system of retainers, that is, the privilege of the nobility to surround themselves with a number of hired mounted servants—the ambacti as they were called—and thereby to form a state within a state; and, resting on the support of these troops of their own, they defied the legal authorities and the common levy and practically broke up the commonwealth. … This remarkable word [ambacti] must have been in use as early as the sixth century of Rome among the Celts in the valley of the Po. … It is not merely Celtic, however, but also German, the root of our 'Amt,' as indeed the retainer-system itself is common to the Celts and the Germans. It would be of great historical importance to ascertain whether the word—and therefore the thing—came to the Celts from the Germans or to the Germans from the Celts. If, as is usually supposed, the word is originally German and primarily signified the servant standing in battle 'against the back' ('and '=against, 'bak'=back) of his master, this is not wholly irreconcilable with the singularly early occurrence of the word among the Celts. … It is … probable that the Celts, in Italy as in Gaul, employed Germans chiefly as those hired servants-at-arms. The 'Swiss guard' would therefore in that case be some thousands of years older than people suppose."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 7, and foot-note.


A small tribe in Gaul which occupied anciently a district between the Saone, the Rhone and the Ain.

Napoleon III., History of Cæsar, book 3, chapter 2, note.




Bribery at elections was termed ambitus among the Romans, and many unavailing laws were enacted to check it.

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 9.


   A tribe in ancient Gaul which occupied the left bank of the
   Meuse, to the south of the marsh of Peel.

Napoleon III., History of Cæsar, book 3, chapter 2, note.

AMBLEVE, Battle of (716.)


AMBOISE, Conspiracy or Tumult of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

AMBOISE, Edict of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.

AMBOYNA, Massacre of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

AMBRACIA (Ambrakia).





See MILAN: A. D. 374-397.

ESTREMOS, Battle of (1663).

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.



AMERICA, The Name.

See below: A. D. 1500-1514.

AMERICA, Prehistoric.

"Widely scattered throughout the United States, from sea to sea, artificial mounds are discovered, which may be enumerated by the thousands or hundreds of thousands. They vary greatly in size; some are so small that a half-dozen laborers with shovels might construct one of them in a day, while others cover acres and are scores of feet in height. These mounds were observed by the earliest explorers and pioneers of the country. They did not attract great attention, however, until the science of archæology demanded their investigation. Then they were assumed to furnish evidence of a race of people older than the Indian tribes. Pseud-archæologists descanted on the Mound-builders that once inhabited the land, and they told of swarming populations who had reached a high condition of culture, erecting temples, practicing arts in the metals, and using hieroglyphs. So the Mound-builders formed the theme of many an essay on the wonders of ancient civilization. The research of the past ten or fifteen years has put this subject in a proper light. First, the annals of the Columbian epoch have been carefully studied, and it is found that some of the mounds have been constructed in historical time, while early explorers and settlers found many actually used by tribes of North American Indians; so we know that many of them were builders of mounds. Again, hundreds and thousands of these mounds have been carefully examined, and the works of art found therein have been collected and assembled in museums. At the same time, the works of art of the Indian tribes, as they were produced before modification by European culture, have been assembled in the same museums, and the two classes of collections have been carefully compared. All this has been done with the greatest painstaking, and the Mound-builder's arts and the Indian's arts are found to be substantially identical. No fragment of evidence remains to support the figment of theory that there was an ancient race of Mound-builders superior in culture to the North American Indians. … That some of these mounds were built and used in modern times is proved in another way. They often contain articles manifestly made by white men, such as glass beads and copper ornaments. … So it chances that to-day unskilled archæologists are collecting many beautiful things in copper, stone, and shell which were made by white men and traded to the Indians. Now, some of these things are found in the mounds; and bird pipes, elephant pipes, banner stones, copper spear heads and knives, and machine-made wampum are collected in quantities and sold at high prices to wealthy amateurs. … The study of these mounds, historically and archæologically, proves that they were used for a variety of purposes. Some were for sepulture, and such are the most common and widely scattered. Others were used as artificial hills on which to build communal houses. … Some of the very large mounds were sites of large communal houses in which entire tribes dwelt. There is still a third class … constructed as places for public assembly. … But to explain the mounds and their uses would expand this article into a book. It is enough to say that the Mound-builders were the Indian tribes discovered by white men. It may well be that some of the mounds were erected by tribes extinct when Columbus first saw these shores, but they were kindred in culture to the peoples that still existed. In the southwestern portion of the United States, conditions of aridity prevail. Forests are few and are found only at great heights. … The tribes lived in the plains and valleys below, while the highlands were their hunting grounds. The arid lands below were often naked of vegetation; and the ledges and cliffs that stand athwart the lands, and the canyon walls that inclose the streams, were everywhere quarries of loose rock, lying in blocks ready to the builder's hand. Hence these people learned to build their dwellings of stone; and they had large communal houses, even larger than the structures of wood made by the tribes of the east and north. Many of these stone pueblos are still occupied, but the ruins are scattered wide over a region of country embracing a little of California and Nevada, much of Utah, most of Colorado, the whole of New Mexico and Arizona, and far southward toward the Isthmus. … No ruin has been discovered where evidences of a higher culture are found than exists in modern times at Zuni, Oraibi, or Laguna. The earliest may have been built thousands of years ago, but they were built by the ancestors of existing tribes and their congeners. A careful study of these ruins, made during the last twenty years, abundantly demonstrates that the pueblo culture began with rude structures of stone and brush, and gradually developed, until at the time of the exploration of the country by the Spaniards, beginning about 1540, it had reached its highest phase. Zuni [in New Mexico] has been built since, and it is among the largest and best villages ever established within the territory of the United States without the aid of ideas derived from civilized men." With regard to the ruins of dwellings found sheltered in the craters of extinct volcanoes, or on the shelves of cliffs, or otherwise contrived, the conclusion to which all recent archæological study tends is the same. "All the stone pueblo ruins, all the clay ruins, all the cliff dwellings, all the crater villages, all the cavate chambers, and all the tufa-block houses are fully accounted for without resort to hypothetical peoples inhabiting the country anterior to the Indian tribes. … Pre-Columbian culture was indigenous; it began at the lowest stage of savagery and developed to the highest, and was in many places passing into barbarism when the good queen sold her jewels."

Major J. W. Powell, Prehistoric Man in America; in "The Forum," January, 1890.

"The writer believes … that the majority of American archæologists now sees no sufficient reason for supposing that any mysterious superior race has ever lived in any portion of our continent. They find no archæological evidence proving that at the time of its discovery any tribe had reached a stage of culture that can properly be called civilization. Even if we accept the exaggerated statements of the Spanish conquerors, the most intelligent and advanced peoples found here were only semi-barbarians, in the stage of transition from the stone to the bronze age, possessing no written language, or what can properly be styled an alphabet, and not yet having even learned the use of beasts of burden."

H. W. Haynes, Prehistoric Archæology of North America (volume 1, chapter 6, of "Narrative and Critical History of America").


"It may be premised … that the Spanish adventurers who thronged to the New World after its discovery found the same race of Red Indians in the West India Islands, in Central and South America, in Florida and in Mexico. In their mode of life and means of subsistence, in their weapons, arts, usages and customs, in their institutions, and in their mental and physical characteristics, they were the same people in different stages of advancement. … There was neither a political society, nor a state, nor any civilization in America when it was discovered; and excluding the Eskimos, but one race of Indians, the Red Race."

      L. H. Morgan,
      Houses and House-life of the American Aborigines:
      (Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 5.),
      chapter 10

"We have in this country the conclusive evidence of the existence of man before the time of the glaciers, and from the primitive conditions of that time, he has lived here and developed, through stages which correspond in many particulars to the Homeric age of Greece."

F. W. Putnam, Report, Peabody Museum of Archæology, 1886.

      ALSO IN
      L. Carr,
      The Mounds of the Mississippi Valley

      C. Thomas,
      Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the
      United States: Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,

      Marquis de Nadaillac,
      Prehistoric America

J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 1.

      See, also, MEXICO; PERU;

AMERICA: 10th-11th Centuries.
   Supposed Discoveries by the Northmen.

The fact that the Northmen knew of the existence of the Western Continent prior to the age of Columbus, was prominently brought before the people of this country in the year 1837, when the Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries at Copenhagen published their work on the Antiquities of North America, under the editorial supervision of the great Icelandic scholar, Professor Rafn. But we are not to suppose that the first general account of these voyages was then given, for it has always been known that the history of certain early voyages to America by the Northmen were preserved in the libraries of Denmark and Iceland. … Yet, owing to the fact that the Icelandic language, though simple in construction and easy of acquisition, was a tongue not understood by scholars, the subject has until recent years been suffered to lie in the background, and permitted, through a want of interest, to share in a measure the treatment meted out to vague and uncertain reports. … It now remains to give the reader some general account of the contents of the narratives which relate more or less to the discovery of the western continent. … The first extracts given are very brief. They are taken from the 'Landanama Book,' and relate to the report in general circulation, which indicated one Gunniborn as the discoverer of Greenland, an event which has been fixed at the year 876. … The next narrative relates to the rediscovery of Greenland by the outlaw, Eric the Red, in 983, who there passed three years in exile, and afterwards returned to Iceland. About the year 986, he brought out to Greenland a considerable colony of settlers, who fixed their abode at Brattahlid, in Ericsfiord. Then follow two versions of the voyage of Biarne Heriulfson, who, in the same year, 986, when sailing for Greenland, was driven away during a storm, and saw a new land at the southward, which he did not visit. Next is given three accounts of the voyage of Leif, son of Eric the Red, who in the year 1000 sailed from Brattahlid to find the land which Biarne saw. Two of these accounts are hardly more than notices of the voyage, but the third is of considerable length, and details the successes of Leif, who found and explored this new land, where he spent the winter, returning to Greenland the following spring [having named different regions which he visited Helluland, Markland and Vinland, the latter name indicative of the finding of grapes]. After this follows the voyage of Thorvald Ericson, brother of Leif, who sailed to Vinland from Greenland, which was the point of departure in all these voyages. This expedition was begun in 1002, and it cost him his life, as an arrow from one of the natives pierced his side, causing death. Thorstein, his brother, went to seek Vinland, with the intention of bringing home his body, but failed in the attempt. The most distinguished explorer was Thorfinn Karlsefne, the Hopeful, an Icelander whose genealogy runs back in the old Northern annals, through Danish, Swedish, and even Scotch and Irish ancestors, some of whom were of royal blood. In the year 1006 he went to Greenland, where he met Gudrid, widow of Thorstein, whom he married. Accompanied by his wife, who urged him to the undertaking, he sailed to Vinland in the spring of 1007, with three vessels and 160 men, where he remained three years. Here his son Snorre was born. He afterwards became the founder of a great family in Iceland, which gave the island several of its first bishops. Thorfinn finally left Vinland because he found it difficult to sustain himself against the attacks of the natives. The next to undertake a voyage was a wicked woman named Freydis, a sister to Leif Ericson, who went to Vinland in 1011, where she lived for a time with her two ships, in the same places occupied by Leif and Thorfinn. Before she returned, she caused the crew of one ship to be cruelly murdered, assisting in the butchery with her own hands. After this we have what are called the Minor Narratives, which are not essential.

B. F. De Costa, Pre-Columban Discovery of America, General Introduction.

By those who accept fully the claims made for the Northmen, as discoverers of the American continent in the voyages believed to be authentically narrated in these sagas, the Helluland of Leif is commonly identified with Newfoundland, Markland with Nova Scotia, and Vinland with various parts of New England. Massachusetts Bay, Cape Cod, Nantucket Island, Martha's Vineyard, Buzzard's Bay, Narragansett Bay, Mount Hope Bay, Long Island Sound, and New York Bay are among the localities supposed to be recognized in the Norse narratives, or marked by some traces of the presence of the Viking explorers. Professor Gustav Storm, the most recent of the Scandinavian investigators of this subject, finds the Helluland of the sagas in Labrador or Northern Newfoundland, Markland in Newfoundland, and Vinland in Nova Scotia and Cape Breton Island.

G. Storm, Studies of the Vineland Voyages.


"The only discredit which has been thrown upon the story of the Vinland voyages, in the eyes either of scholars or of the general public, has arisen from the eager credulity with which ingenious antiquarians have now and then tried to prove more than facts will warrant. … Archælogical remains of the Northmen abound in Greenland, all the way from Immartinek to near Cape Farewell; the existence of one such relic on the North American continent has never yet been proved. Not a single vestige of the Northmen's presence here, at all worthy of credence, has ever been found. … The most convincing proof that the Northmen never founded a colony in America, south of Davis Strait, is furnished by the total absence of horses, cattle and other domestic animals from the soil of North America until they were brought hither by the Spanish, French and English settlers."

J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 2.

"What Leif and Karlsefne knew they experienced," writes Professor Justin Winsor, "and what the sagas tell us they underwent, must have just the difference between a crisp narrative of personal adventure and the oft-repeated and embellished story of a fireside narrator, since the traditions of the Norse voyages were not put in the shape of records till about two centuries had elapsed, and we have no earlier manuscript of such a record than one made nearly two hundred years later still. … A blending of history and myth prompts Horn to say that 'some of the sagas were doubtless originally based on facts, but the telling and retelling have changed them into pure myths.' The unsympathetic stranger sees this in stories that the patriotic Scandinavians are over-anxious to make appear as genuine chronicles. … The weight of probability is in favor of a Northman descent upon the coast of the American mainland at some point, or at several, somewhere to the south of Greenland; but the evidence is hardly that which attaches to well established historical records. … There is not a single item of all the evidence thus advanced from time to time which can be said to connect by archæological traces the presence of the Northmen on the soil of North America south of Davis' Straits." Of other imagined pre-Columban discoveries of America, by the Welsh, by the Arabs, by the Basques, &c., the possibilities and probabilities are critically discussed by Professor Winsor in the same connection.

J. Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 1, chapter 2, and Critical Notes to the same.

ALSO IN Bryant and Gay, Popular History of the United States, chapter 3.

E. F. Slafter, Editor, Voyages of the Northmen to America (Prince Society, 1877).

E. F. Slafter, Editor, Discovery of America by the Northmen (N. H. History Society, 1888).

N. L. Beamish, Discovery of America by the Northmen.

A. J. Weise, Discoveries of America, chapter 1.

AMERICA: A. D. 1484-1492.
   The great project of Columbus, and the sources of its inspiration.
   His seven years' suit at the Spanish Court.
   His departure from Palos.

"All attempts to diminish the glory of Columbus' achievement by proving a previous discovery whose results were known to him have signally failed. … Columbus originated no new theory respecting the earth's form or size, though a popular idea has always prevailed, notwithstanding the statements of the best writers to the contrary, that he is entitled to the glory of the theory as well as to that of the execution of the project. He was not in advance of his age, entertained no new theories, believed no more than did Prince Henry, his predecessor, or Toscanelli, his contemporary; nor was he the first to conceive the possibility of reaching the east by sailing west. He was however the first to act in accordance with existing beliefs. The Northmen in their voyages had entertained no ideas of a New World, or of an Asia to the West. To knowledge of theoretical geography, Columbus added the skill of a practical navigator, and the iron will to overcome obstacles. He sailed west, reached Asia as he believed, and proved old theories correct. There seem to be two undecided points in that matter, neither of which can ever be settled. First, did his experience in the Portuguese voyages, the perusal of some old author, or a hint from one of the few men acquainted with old traditions, first suggest to Columbus his project? … Second, to what extent did his voyage to the north [made in 1477, probably with an English merchantman from Bristol, in which voyage he is believed to have visited Iceland] influence his plan? There is no evidence, but a strong probability, that he heard in that voyage of the existence of land in the west. … Still, his visit to the north was in 1477, several years after the first formation of his plan, and any information gained at the time could only have been confirmatory rather than suggestive."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1, summary appendix to chapter 1.

   "Of the works of learned men, that which, according to
   Ferdinand Columbus, had most weight with his father, was the
   'Cosmographia' of Cardinal Aliaco. Columbus was also confirmed
   in his views of the existence of a western passage to the
   Indies by Paulo Toscanelli, the Florentine philosopher, to
   whom much credit is due for the encouragement he afforded to
   the enterprise. That the notices, however, of western lands
   were not such as to have much weight with other men, is
   sufficiently proved by the difficulty which Columbus had in
   contending with adverse geographers and men of science in
   general, of whom he says he never was able to convince any
   one. After a new world had been discovered, many scattered
   indications were then found to have foreshown it. One thing
   which cannot be denied to Columbus is that he worked out his
   own idea himself. … He first applied himself to his
   countrymen, the Genoese, who would have nothing to say to his
   scheme. He then tried the Portuguese, who listened to what he
   had to say, but with bad faith sought to anticipate him by
   sending out a caravel with instructions founded upon his plan.
   … Columbus, disgusted at the treatment he had received from
   the Portuguese Court, quitted Lisbon, and, after visiting
   Genoa, as it appears, went to see what favour he could meet
   with in Spain, arriving at Palos in the year 1485." The story
   of the long suit of Columbus at the Court of Ferdinand and
   Isabella; of his discouragement and departure, with intent to
   go to France; of his recall by command of Queen Isabella; of
   the tedious hearings and negotiations that now took place; of
   the lofty demands adhered to by the confident Genoese, who
   required "to be made an admiral at once, to be appointed
   viceroy of the countries he should discover, and to have an
   eighth of the profits of the expedition;" of his second
   rebuff, his second departure for France, and second recall by
   Isabella, who finally put her heart into the enterprise and
   persuaded her more skeptical consort to assent to it—the
   story of those seven years of the struggle of Columbus to
   obtain means for his voyage is familiar to all readers.
   "The agreement between Columbus and their Catholic highnesses
   was signed at Santa Fe on the 17th of April, 1492; and
   Columbus went to Palos to make preparation for his voyage,
   bearing with him an order that the two vessels which that city
   furnished annually to the crown for three months should be
   placed at his disposal. … The Pinzons, rich men and skilful
   mariners of Palos, joined in the undertaking, subscribing an
   eighth of the expenses; and thus, by these united exertions,
   three vessels were manned with 90 mariners, and provisioned
   for a year. At length all the preparations were complete, and
   on a Friday (not inauspicious in this case), the 3d of August,
   1492, after they had all confessed and received the sacrament,
   they set sail from the bar of Saltes, making for the Canary

Sir A. Helps, The Spanish Conquest in America, book 2, chapter 1.

ALSO IN J. Winsor, Christopher Columbus, chapter 5-9, and 20.

AMERICA: A. D. 1492.
   The First Voyage of Columbus.
   Discovery of the Bahamas, Cuba and Hayti.

The three vessels of Columbus were called the Santa Maria, the Pinta and the Nina. "All had forecastles and high poops, but the 'Santa Maria' was the only one that was decked amidships, and she was called a 'nao' or ship. The other two were caravelas, a class of small vessels built for speed. The 'Santa Maria,' as I gather from scattered notices in the letters of Columbus, was of 120 to 130 tons, like a modern coasting schooner, and she carried 70 men, much crowded. Her sails were a foresail and a foretop-sail, a sprit-sail, a main-sail with two bonnets, and maintop sail, a mizzen, and a boat's sail were occasionally hoisted on the poop. The 'Pinta' and 'Nina' only had square sails on the foremast and lateen sails on the main and mizzen. The former was 50 tons, the latter 40 tons, with crews of 20 men each. On Friday, the 3d of August, the three little vessels left the haven of Palos, and this memorable voyage was commenced. … The expedition proceeded to the Canary Islands, where the rig of the 'Pinta' was altered. Her lateen sails were not adapted for running before the wind, and she was therefore fitted with square sails, like the 'Santa Maria.' Repairs were completed, the vessels were filled up with wood and water at Gomera, and the expedition took its final departure from the island of Gomera, one of the Canaries, on September 6th, 1492. … Columbus had chosen his route most happily, and with that fortunate prevision which often waits upon genius. From Gomera, by a course a little south of west, he would run down the trades to the Bahama Islands. From the parallel of about 30° N. nearly to the equator there is a zone of perpetual winds—namely, the north-east trade winds—always moving in the same direction, as steadily as the current of a river, except where they are turned aside by local causes, so that the ships of Columbus were steadily carried to their destination by a law of nature which, in due time, revealed itself to that close observer of her secrets. The constancy of the wind was one cause of alarm among the crews, for they began to murmur that the provisions would all be exhausted if they had to beat against these unceasing winds on the return voyage. The next event which excited alarm among the pilots was the discovery that the compasses had more than a point of easterly variation. … This was observed on the 17th of September, and about 300 miles westward of the meridian of the Azores, when the ships had been eleven days at sea. Soon afterwards the voyagers found themselves surrounded by masses of seaweed, in what is called the Sargasso Sea, and this again aroused their fears. They thought that the ships would get entangled in the beds of weed and become immovable, and that the beds marked the limit of navigation. The cause of this accumulation is well known now. If bits of cork are put into a basin of water, and a circular motion given to it, all the corks will be found crowding together towards the centre of the pool where there is the least motion. The Atlantic Ocean is just such a basin, the Gulf Stream is the whirl, and the Sargasso Sea is in the centre. There Columbus found it, and there it has remained to this day, moving up and down and changing its position according to seasons, storms and winds, but never altering its mean position. … As day after day passed, and there was no sign of land, the crews became turbulent and mutinous. Columbus encouraged them with hopes of reward, while he told them plainly that he had come to discover India, and that, with the help of God, he would persevere until he found it. At length, on the 11th of October, towards ten at night, Columbus was on the poop and saw a light. … At two next morning, land was distinctly seen. … The island, called by the natives Guanahani, and by Columbus San Salvador, has now been ascertained to be Watling Island, one of the Bahamas, 14 miles long by 6 broad, with a brackish lake in the centre, in 24° 10' 30'' north latitude. … The difference of latitude between Gomera and Watling Island is 235 miles. Course, West 5° South; distance 3,114 miles; average distance made good daily, 85'; voyage 35 days. … After discovering several smaller islands the fleet came in sight of Cuba on the 27th October, and explored part of the northern coast. Columbus believed it to be Cipango, the island placed on the chart of Toscanelli, between Europe and Asia. … Crossing the channel between Cuba and St. Domingo [or Hayti], they anchored in the harbour of St. Nicholas Mole on December 4th. The natives came with presents and the country was enchanting. Columbus … named the island 'Española' [or Hispaniola]. But with all this peaceful beauty around him he was on the eve of disaster." The Santa Maria was drifted by a strong current upon a sand bank and hopelessly wrecked. "It was now necessary to leave a small colony on the island. … A fort was built and named 'La Navidad,' 39 men remaining behind supplied with stores and provisions," and on Friday, January 4, 1493, Columbus began his homeward voyage. Weathering a dangerous gale, which lasted several days, his little vessels reached the Azores February 17, and arrived at Palos March 15, bearing their marvellous news.

C. R. Markham, The Sea Fathers, chapter 2.

C. R. Markham, Life of Columbus, chapter 5.


The statement above that the island of the Bahamas on which Columbus first landed, and which he called San Salvador, "has now been ascertained to be Watling Island" seems hardly justified. The question between Watling Island, San Salvador or Cat Island, Samana, or Attwood's Cay, Mariguana, the Grand Turk, and others is still in dispute. Professor Justin Winsor says "the weight of modern testimony seems to favor Watling's Island;" but at the same time he thinks it "probable that men will never quite agree which of the Bahamas it was upon which these startled and exultant Europeans first stepped."

J. Winsor, Christopher Columbus, chapter 9.

J. Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 2, chapter 1, note B.

Professor John Fiske, says: "All that can be positively asserted of Guanahani is that it was one of the Bahamas; there has been endless discussion as to which one, and the question is not easy to settle. Perhaps the theory of Captain Gustavus Fox, of the United States Navy, is on the whole best supported. Captain Fox maintains that the true Guanahani was the little Island now known as Samana or Attwood's Cay."

      J. Fiske,
      The Discovery of America,
      chapter 5 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN
      U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Report, 1880,
      appendix 18.

AMERICA: A. D. 1493.
   Papal grant of the New World to Spain.

"Spain was at this time connected with the Pope about a most momentous matter. The Genoese, Cristoforo Colombo, arrived at the Spanish court in March, 1493, with the astounding news of the discovery of a new continent. … Ferdinand and Isabella thought it wise to secure a title to all that might ensue from their new discovery. The Pope, as Vicar of Christ, was held to have authority to dispose of lands inhabited by the heathen; and by papal Bulls the discoveries of Portugal along the African coast had been secured. The Portuguese showed signs of urging claims to the New World, as being already conveyed to them by the papal grants previously issued in their favour. To remove all cause of dispute, the Spanish monarchs at once had recourse to Alexander VI., who issued two Bulls on May 4 and 5 [1493] to determine the respective rights of Spain and Portugal. In the first, the Pope granted to the Spanish monarchs and their heirs all lands discovered or hereafter to be discovered in the western ocean. In the second, he defined his grant to mean all lands that might be discovered west and south of an imaginary line, drawn from the North to the South Pole, at the distance of a hundred leagues westward of the Azores and Cape de Verd Islands. In the light of our present knowledge we are amazed at this simple means of disposing of a vast extent of the earth's surface." Under the Pope's stupendous patent, Spain was able to claim every part of the American Continent except the Brazilian coast.

M. Creighton, History of the Papacy during the Reformation, book 5, chapter 6 (volume 3).

      ALSO IN
      E. G. Bourne,
      The Demarcation Line of Pope Alexander VI.
      (Yale Review., May, 1892)

      J. Fiske,
      The Discovery of America,
      chapter 6 (volume 1).

      J. Gordon,
      The Bulls distributing America
      (American Society of Ch. Dist., volume 4)

See, also, below: A. D. 1494.

AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496.
   The Second Voyage of Columbus.
   Discovery of Jamaica and the Caribbees.
   Subjugation of Hispaniola.

"The departure of Columbus on his second voyage of discovery presented a brilliant contrast to his gloomy embarkation at Palos. On the 25th of September [1493], at the dawn of day the bay of Cadiz was whitened by his fleet: There were three large ships of heavy burden and fourteen caravels. … Before sunrise the whole fleet was under way." Arrived at the Canaries on the 1st of October, Columbus purchased there calves, goats, sheep, hogs, and fowls, with which to stock the island of Hispaniola; also "seeds of oranges, lemons, bergamots, melons, and various orchard fruits, which were thus first introduced into the islands of the west from the Hesperides or Fortunate Islands of the Old World." It was not until the 13th of October that the fleet left the Canaries, and it arrived among the islands since called the Lesser Antilles or Caribbees, on the evening of November 2. Sailing through this archipelago, discovering the larger island of Porto Rico on the way, Columbus reached the eastern extremity of Hispaniola or Hayti on the 22d of November, and arrived on the 27th at La Navidad, where he had left a garrison ten months before. He found nothing but ruin, silence and the marks of death, and learned, after much inquiry, that his unfortunate men, losing all discipline after his departure, had provoked the natives by rapacity and licentiousness until the latter rose against them and destroyed them. Abandoning the scene of this disaster, Columbus found an excellent harbor ten leagues east of Monte Christi and there he began the founding of a city which he named Isabella. "Isabella at the present day is quite overgrown with forests, in the midst of which are still to be seen, partly standing, the pillars of the church, some remains of the king's storehouses, and part of the residence of Columbus, all built of hewn stone." While the foundations of the new city were being laid, Columbus sent back part of his ships to Spain, and undertook an exploration of the interior of the island—the mountains of Cibao—where abundance of gold was promised. Some gold washings were found—far too scanty to satisfy the expectations of the Spaniards; and, as want and sickness soon made their appearance at Isabella, discontent was rife and mutiny afoot before the year had ended. In April, 1494, Columbus set sail with three caravels to revisit the coast of Cuba, for a more extended exploration than he had attempted on the first discovery. "He supposed it to be a continent, and the extreme end of Asia, and if so, by following its shores in the proposed direction he must eventually arrive at Cathay and those other rich and commercial, though semi-barbarous countries, described by Mandeville and Marco Polo." Reports of gold led him southward from Cuba until he discovered the island which he called Santiago, but which has kept its native name, Jamaica, signifying the Island of Springs. Disappointed in the search for gold, he soon returned from Jamaica to Cuba and sailed along its southern coast to very near the western extremity, confirming himself and his followers in the belief that they skirted the shores of Asia and might follow them to the Red Sea, if their ships and stores were equal to so long a voyage. "Two or three days' further sail would have carried Columbus round the extremity of Cuba; would have dispelled his illusion, and might have given an entirely different course to his subsequent discoveries. In his present conviction he lived and died; believing to his last hour that Cuba was the extremity of the Asiatic continent." {51} Returning eastward, he visited Jamaica again and purposed some further exploration of the Caribbee Islands, when his toils and anxieties overcame him. "He fell into a deep lethargy, resembling death itself. His crew, alarmed at this profound torpor, feared that death was really at hand. They abandoned, therefore, all further prosecution of the voyage; and spreading their sails to the east wind so prevalent in those seas, bore Columbus back, in a state of complete insensibility, to the harbor of Isabella,"—September 4. Recovering consciousness, the admiral was rejoiced to find his brother Bartholomew, from whom he had been separated for years, and who had been sent out to him from Spain, in command of three ships. Otherwise there was little to give pleasure to Columbus when he returned to Isabella. His followers were again disorganized, again at war with the natives, whom they plundered and licentiously abused, and a mischief-making priest had gone back to Spain, along with certain intriguing officers, to make complaints and set enmities astir at the court. Involved in war, Columbus prosecuted it relentlessly, reduced the island to submission and the natives to servitude and misery by heavy exactions. In March 1496 he returned to Spain, to defend himself against the machinations of his enemies, transferring the government of Hispaniola to his brother Bartholomew.

W. Irving, Life and Voyages of Columbus, books 6-8 (volumes 1-2).

ALSO IN H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1, chapter 2.

      J. Winsor,
      Christopher Columbus,
      chapters 12-14.

AMERICA: A. D. 1494.
   The Treaty of Tordesillas.
   Amended Partition of the New World between Spain and Portugal.

"When speaking or writing of the conquest of America, it is generally believed that the only title upon which were based the conquests of Spain and Portugal was the famous Papal Bull of partition of the Ocean, of 1493. Few modern authors take into consideration that this Bull was amended, upon the petition of the King of Portugal, by the [Treaty of Tordesillas], signed by both powers in 1494, augmenting the portion assigned to the Portuguese in the partition made between them of the Continent of America. The arc of meridian fixed by this treaty as a dividing line, which gave rise, owing to the ignorance of the age, to so many diplomatic congresses and interminable controversies, may now be traced by any student of elementary mathematics. This line … runs along the meridian of 47° 32' 56" west of Greenwich. … The name Brazil, or 'tierra del Brazil,' at that time [the middle of the 16th century] referred only to the part of the continent producing the dye wood so-called. Nearly two centuries later the Portuguese advanced toward the South, and the name Brazil then covered the new possessions they were acquiring."

      L. L. Dominguez,
      Introduction to "The Conquest of the River Plate"
      (Hakluyt Society Publications. Number 81).

AMERICA: A. D. 1497.
   Discovery of the North American Continent by John Cabot.

"The achievement of Columbus, revealing the wonderful truth of which the germ may have existed in the imagination of every thoughtful mariner, won [in England] the admiration which belonged to genius that seemed more divine than human; and 'there was great talk of it in all the court of Henry VII.' A feeling of disappointment remained, that a series of disasters had defeated the wish of the illustrious Genoese to make his voyage of essay under the flag of England. It was, therefore, not difficult for John Cabot, a denizen of Venice, residing at Bristol, to interest that politic king in plans for discovery. On the 5th of March, 1496, he obtained under the great seal a commission empowering himself and his three sons, or either of them, their heirs, or their deputies, to sail into the eastern, western, or northern sea with a fleet of five ships, at their own expense, in search of islands, provinces, or regions hitherto unseen by Christian people; to affix the banners of England on city, island, or continent; and, as vassals of the English crown, to possess and occupy the territories that might be found. It was further stipulated in this 'most ancient American State paper of England,' that the patentees should be strictly bound, on every return, to land at the port of Bristol, and to pay to the king one-fifth part of their gains; while the exclusive right of frequenting all the countries that might be found was reserved to them and to their assigns' without limit of time. Under this patent, which, at the first direction of English enterprise toward America, embodied the worst features of monopoly and commercial restriction, John Cabot, taking with him his son Sebastian, embarked in quest of new islands and a passage to Asia by the north-west. After sailing prosperously, as he reported, for 700 leagues, on the 24th day of June, early in the morning, almost fourteen months before Columbus on his third voyage came in sight of the main, and more than two years before Amerigo Vespucci sailed west of the Canaries, he discovered the western continent, probably in the latitude of about 56° degrees, among the dismal cliffs of Labrador. He ran along the coast for many leagues, it is said even for 300, and landed on what he considered to be the territory of the Grand Cham. But he encountered no human being, although there were marks that the region was inhabited. He planted on the land a large cross with the flag of England, and, from affection for the republic of Venice, he added the banner of St. Mark, which had never been borne so far before. On his homeward voyage he saw on his right hand two islands, which for want of provisions he could not stop to explore. After an absence of three months the great discoverer re-entered Bristol harbor, where due honors awaited him. The king gave him money, and encouraged him to continue his career, The people called him the great admiral; he dressed in silk; and the English, and even Venetians who chanced to be at Bristol, ran after him with such zeal that he could enlist for a new voyage as many as he pleased. … On the third day of the month of February next after his return, 'John Kaboto, Venecian,' accordingly obtained a power to take up ships for another voyage, at the rates fixed for those employed in the service of the king, and once more to set sail with as many companions as would go with him of their own will. With this license every trace of John Cabot disappears. He may have died before the summer; but no one knows certainly the time or the place of his end, and it has not even been ascertained in what country this finder of a continent first saw the light."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States of America. (Author's last Revision), part 1, chapter 1.


In the Critical Essay appended to a chapter on the voyages of the Cabots, in the Narrative and Critical History of America, there is published, for the first time, an English translation of a dispatch from Raimondo de Soncino, envoy of the Duke of Milan to Henry VII., written Aug. 24, 1497, and giving an account of the voyage from which 'Master John Caboto,' 'a Venetian fellow,' had just returned. This paper was brought to light in 1865, from the State Archives of Milan. Referring to the dispatch, and to a letter, also quoted, from the 'Venetian Calendars,' written Aug. 23, 1497, by Lorenzo Pasqualigo, a merchant in London, to his brothers in Venice, Mr. Charles Deane says: "These letters are sufficient to show that North America was discovered by John Cabot, the name of Sebastian being nowhere mentioned in them, and that the discovery was made in 1497. The place which he first sighted is given on the map of 1544 [a map of Sebastian Cabot, discovered in Germany in 1843] as the north part of Cape Breton Island, on which is inscribed 'prima tierra vista,' which was reached, according to the Legend, on the 24th of June. Pasqualigo, the only one who mentions it, says he coasted 300 leagues. Mr. Brevoort, who accepts the statement, thinks he made the periplus of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, passing out at the Straits of Belle Isle, and thence home. … The extensive sailing up and down the coast described by chroniclers from conversations with Sebastian Cabot many years afterwards, though apparently told as occurring on the voyage of discovery—as only one voyage is ever mentioned—must have taken place on a later voyage."

C. Deane, Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 3, chapter 1, Critical Essay.

ALSO IN R. Biddle, Memoir of Sebastian Cabot, chapter 1-8.

AMERICA: A. D. 1497-1498.
   The first Voyage of Americus Vespucius.
   Misunderstandings and disputes concerning it.
   Vindication of the Florentine navigator.
   His exploration of 4,000 miles of continental coast.

"Our information concerning Americus Vespucius, from the early part of the year 1496 until after his return from the Portuguese to the Spanish service in the latter part of 1504, rests primarily upon his two famous letters; the one addressed to his old patron Lorenzo di Pier Francesco de' Medici (a cousin of Lorenzo the Magnificent) and written in March or April, 1503, giving an account of his third voyage; the other addressed to his old school-fellow Piero Soderini [then Gonfaloniere of Florence] and dated from Lisbon, September 4, 1504, giving a brief account of four voyages which he had made under various commanders in the capacity of astronomer or pilot. These letters … became speedily popular, and many editions were published, more especially in France, Germany, and Italy. … The letter to Soderini gives an account of four voyages in which the writer took part, the first two in the service of Spain, the other two in the service of Portugal. The first expedition sailed from Cadiz May 10, 1497, and returned October 15, 1498, after having explored a coast so long as to seem unquestionably that of a continent. This voyage, as we shall see, was concerned with parts of America not visited again until 1513 and 1517. It discovered nothing that was calculated to invest it with much importance in Spain, though it by no means passed without notice there, as has often been wrongly asserted. Outside of Spain it came to attract more attention, but in an unfortunate way, for a slight but very serious error in proof-reading or editing, in the most important of the Latin versions, caused it after a while to be practically identified with the second voyage, made two years later. This confusion eventually led to most outrageous imputations upon the good name of Americus, which it has been left for the present century to remove. The second voyage of Vespucius was that in which he accompanied Alonso de Ojeda and Juan de la Costa, from May 20, 1499, to June, 1500. They explored the northern coast of South America from some point on what we would now call the north coast of Brazil, as far as the Pearl Coast visited by Columbus in the preceding year; and they went beyond, as far as the Gulf of Maracaibo. Here the squadron seems to have become divided, Ojeda going over to Hispaniola in September, while Vespucius remained cruising till February. … It is certainly much to be regretted that in the narrative of his first expedition, Vespucius did not happen to mention the name of the chief commander. … However … he was writing not for us, but for his friend, and he told Soderini only what he thought would interest him. … Of the letter to Soderini the version which has played the most important part in history is the Latin one first published at the press of the little college at Saint-Dié in Lorraine, April 25 (vij Kl' Maij), 1507. … It was translated, not from an original text, but from an intermediate French version, which is lost. Of late years, however, we have detected, in an excessively rare Italian text, the original from which the famous Lorraine version was ultimately derived. … If now we compare this primitive text with the Latin of the Lorraine version of 1507, we observe that, in the latter, one proper name—the Indian name of a place visited by Americus on his first voyage—has been altered. In the original it is 'Lariab;' in the Latin it has become 'Parias.' This looks like an instance of injudicious editing on the part of the Latin translator, although, of course, it may be a case of careless proof-reading. Lariab is a queer-looking word. It is no wonder that a scholar in his study among the mountains of Lorraine could make nothing of it. If he had happened to be acquainted with the language of the Huastecas, who dwelt at that time about the river Panuco—fierce and dreaded enemies of their southern neighbours the Aztecs—he would have known that names of places in that region were apt to end in ab. … But as such facts were quite beyond our worthy translator's ken, we cannot much blame him if he felt that such a word as Lariab needed doctoring. Parias (Paria) was known to be the native name of a region on the western shores of the Atlantic, and so Lariab became Parias. As the distance from the one place to the other is more than two thousand miles, this little emendation shifted the scene of the first voyage beyond all recognition, and cast the whole subject into an outer darkness where there has been much groaning and gnashing of teeth. Another curious circumstance came in to confirm this error. On his first voyage, shortly before arriving at Lariab, Vespucius saw an Indian town built over the water, 'like Venice.' He counted 44 large wooden houses, 'like barracks,' supported on huge tree- trunks and communicating with each other by bridges that could be drawn up in case of danger. {53} This may well have been a village of communal houses of the Chontals on the coast of Tabasco; but such villages were afterwards seen on the Gulf of Maracaibo, and one of them was called Venezuela, or 'Little Venice,' a name since spread over a territory nearly twice as large as France. So the amphibious town described by Vespucius was incontinently moved to Maracaibo, as if there could be only one such place, as if that style of defensive building had not been common enough in many ages and in many parts of the earth, from ancient Switzerland to modern Siam. … Thus in spite of the latitudes and longitudes distinctly stated by Vespucius in his letter, did Lariab and the little wooden Venice get shifted from the Gulf of Mexico to the northern coast of South America. Now there is no question that Vespucius in his second voyage, with Ojeda for captain, did sail along that coast, visiting the gulfs of Paria and Maracaibo. This was in the summer of 1499, one year after a part of the same coast had been visited by Columbus. Hence in a later period, long after the actors in these scenes had been gathered unto their fathers, and when people had begun to wonder how the New World could ever have come to be called America instead of Columbia, it was suggested that the first voyage described by Vespucius must be merely a clumsy and fictitious duplicate of the second, and that he invented it and thrust it back from 1499 to 1497, in order that he might be accredited with 'the discovery of the continent' one year in advance of his friend Columbus. It was assumed that he must have written his letter to Soderini with the base intention of supplanting his friend, and that the shabby device was successful. This explanation seemed so simple and intelligible that it became quite generally adopted, and it held its ground until the subject began to be critically studied, and Alexander von Humboldt showed, about sixty years ago, that the first naming of America occurred in no such way as had been supposed. As soon as we refrain from projecting our modern knowledge of geography into the past, as soon as we pause to consider how these great events appeared to the actors themselves, the absurdity of this accusation against Americus becomes evident. We arc told that he falsely pretended to have visited Paria and Maracaibo in 1497, in order to claim priority over Columbus in the discovery of 'the continent.' What continent? When Vespucius wrote that letter to Soderini, neither he nor anybody else suspected that what we now call America had been discovered. The only continent of which there could be any question, so far as supplanting Columbus was concerned, was Asia. But in 1504 Columbus was generally supposed to have discovered the continent of Asia, by his new route, in 1492. … It was M. Varnhagen who first turned inquiry on this subject in the right direction. … Having taken a correct start by simply following the words of Vespucius himself, from a primitive text, without reference to any preconceived theories or traditions, M. Varnhagen finds" that Americus in his first voyage made land on the northern coast of Honduras; "that he sailed around Yucatan, and found his aquatic village of communal houses, his little wooden Venice, on the shore of Tabasco. Thence, after a fight with the natives in which a few tawny prisoners were captured and carried on board the caravels, Vespucius seems to have taken a straight course to the Huasteca country by Tampico, without touching at points in the region subject or tributary to the Aztec confederacy. This Tampico country was what Vespucius understood to be called Lariab. He again gives the latitude definitely and correctly as 23° N., and he mentions a few interesting circumstances. He saw the natives roasting a dreadfully ugly animal," of which he gives what seems to be "an excellent description of the iguana, the flesh of which is to this day an important article of food in tropical America. … After leaving this country of Lariab the ships kept still to the northwest for a short distance, and then followed the windings of the coast for 870 leagues. … After traversing the 870 leagues of crooked coast, the ships found themselves 'in the finest harbour in the world' [which M. Varnhagen supposed, at first, to have been in Chesapeake Bay, but afterwards reached conclusions pointing to the neighbourhood of Cape Cañaveral, on the Florida coast]. It was in June, 1498, thirteen months since they had started from Spain. … They spent seven-and-thirty days in this unrivalled harbour, preparing for the home voyage, and found the natives very hospitable. These red men courted the aid of the white strangers," in an attack which they wished to make upon a fierce race of cannibals, who inhabited certain islands some distance out to sea. The Spaniards agreed to the expedition, and sailed late in August, taking seven of the friendly Indians for guides. "After a week's voyage they fell in with the islands, some peopled, others uninhabited, evidently the Bermudas, 600 miles from Cape Hatteras as the crow flies. The Spaniards landed on an island called Iti, and had a brisk fight," resulting in the capture of more than 200 prisoners. Seven of these were given to the Indian guides, who paddled home with them. "'We also [wrote Vespucius] set sail for Spain, with 222 prisoners, slaves; and arrived in the port of Cadiz on the 15th day of October, 1498, where we were well received and sold our slaves.' … The obscurity in which this voyage has so long been enveloped is due chiefly to the fact that it was not followed up till many years had elapsed, and the reason for this neglect impresses upon us forcibly the impossibility of understanding the history of the Discovery of America unless we bear in mind all the attendant circumstances. One might at first suppose that a voyage which revealed some 4,000 miles of the coast of North America would have attracted much attention in Spain and have become altogether too famous to be soon forgotten. Such an argument, however, loses sight of the fact that these early voyagers were not trying to 'discover America.' There was nothing to astonish them in the existence of 4,000 miles of coast line on this side of the Atlantic. To their minds it was simply the coast of Asia, about which they knew nothing except from Marco Polo, and the natural effect of such a voyage as this would be simply to throw discredit upon that traveller."

J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 7 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      C. E. Lester and A. Foster,
      Life and Voyages of Americus Vespucius,
      part 1, chapter 7

J. Winsor, Christopher Columbus, chapter 15.


AMERICA: A. D. 1498.
   Voyage and Discoveries of Sebastian Cabot.
   The ground of English claims in the New World.

"The son of John Cabot, Sebastian, is not mentioned in this patent [issued by Henry VII., February 3, 1498], as he had been in that of 1496. Yet he alone profited by it. For the father is not again mentioned in connection with the voyage. … Sebastian was now, if Humboldt's supposition is true that he was born in 1477, a young man of about 20 or 21 years of age. And as he had become proficient in astronomy and mathematics, and had gained naval experience in the voyage he had made in company with his father; and as he knew better than anyone else his father's views, and also the position of the newly discovered regions, he may now have well appeared to Henry as a fit person for the command of another expedition to the northwest. Two ships, manned with 300 mariners and volunteers, were ready for him early in the spring of 1498; and he sailed with them from Bristol, probably in the beginning of the month of May. We have no certain information regarding his route. But he appears to have directed his course again to the country which he had seen the year before on the voyage with his father, our present Labrador. He sailed along the coast of this country so far north that, even in the month of July, he encountered much ice. Observing at the same time, to his great displeasure, that the coast was trending to the east, he resolved to give up a further advance to the north, and returned in a southern direction. At Newfoundland, he probably came to anchor in some port, and refreshed his men, and refitted his vessels after their Arctic hardships. … He probably was the first fisherman on the banks or shores of Newfoundland, which through him became famous in Europe. Sailing from Newfoundland southwest, he kept the coast in view as much as possible, on his right side, 'always with the intent to find a passage and open water to India.' … After having rounded Cape Cod, he must have felt fresh hope. He saw a coast running to the west, and open water before him in that direction. It is therefore nearly certain that he entered somewhat that broad gulf, in the interior corner of which lies the harbor of New York. … From a statement contained in the work of Peter Martyr it appears … certain that Cabot landed on some places of the coast along which he sailed. This author, relating a conversation which he had with his friend Cabot, on the subject of his voyage of 1498, says that Cabot told him 'he had found on most of the places copper or brass among the aborigines.' … From another authority we learn that he captured some of these aborigines and brought them to England, where they lived and were seen a few years after his return by the English chronicler, Robert Fabyan. It is not stated at what place he captured those Indians; but it was not customary with the navigators of that time to take on board the Indians until near the time of their leaving the country. Cabot's Indians, therefore, were probably captured on some shore south of New York harbor. … The southern terminus of his voyage is pretty well ascertained. He himself informed his friend Peter Martyr, that he went as far south as about the latitude of the Strait of Gibraltar, that is to say, about 36° North latitude, which is near that of Cape Hatteras. … On their return from their first voyage of 1497, the Cabots believed that they had discovered portions of Asia and so proclaimed it. But the more extensive discoveries of the second voyage corrected the views of Sebastian, and revealed to him nothing but a wild and barbarous coast, stretching through 30 degrees of latitude, from 67½° to 36°. The discovery of this impassable barrier across his passage to Cathay, as he often complained, was a sore displeasure to him. Instead of the rich possessions of China, which he hoped to reach, he was arrested by a New found land, savage and uncultivated. A spirited German author, Dr. G. M. Asher, in his life of Henry Hudson, published in London in 1860, observes: 'The displeasure of Cabot involves the scientific discovery of a new world. He was the first to recognize that a new and unknown continent was lying, as one vast barrier, between Western Europe and Eastern Asia.' … When Cabot made proposals in the following year, 1499, for another expedition to the same regions, he was supported neither by the king nor the merchants. For several years the scheme for the discovery of a north-western route to Cathay was not much favored in England. Nevertheless, the voyage of this gifted and enterprising youth along the entire coast of the present United States, nay along the whole extent of that great continent, in which now the English race and language prevail and flourish, has always been considered as the true beginning, the foundation and cornerstone, of all the English claims and possessions in the northern half of America."

J. G. Kohl, History of the Discovery of Maine, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: R. Biddle, Memoir of Sebastian Cabot, chapter 1-10.

J. F. Nicholls, Life of Sebastian Cabot, chapter 5.

AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.
   The Third and Fourth Voyages of Columbus.

   Discovery of Trinidad, the northern coast of S. America, the
   shores of Central America and Panama.

When Columbus reached Spain in June, 1496, "Ferdinand and Isabella received him kindly, gave him new honors and promised him other outfits. Enthusiasm, however, had died out and delays took place. The reports of the returning ships did not correspond with the pictures of Marco Polo, and the new-found world was thought to be a very poor India after all. Most people were of this mind; though Columbus was not disheartened, and the public treasury was readily opened for a third voyage. Coronel sailed early in 1498 with two ships, and Columbus followed with six, embarking at San Lucas on the 30th of May. He now discovered Trinidad (July 31), which he named either from its three peaks, or from the Holy Trinity; struck the northern coast of South America, and skirted what was later known as the Pearl coast, going as far as the Island of Margarita. He wondered at the roaring fresh waters which the Oronoco pours into the Gulf of Pearls, as he called it, and he half believed that its exuberant tide came from the terrestrial paradise. He touched the southern coast of Hayti on the 30th of August. Here already his colonists had established a fortified post, and founded the town of Santo Domingo. His brother Bartholomew had ruled energetically during the Admiral's absence, but he had not prevented a revolt, which was headed by Roldan. Columbus on his arrival found the insurgents still defiant, but he was able after a while to reconcile them, and he even succeeded in attaching Roldan warmly to his interests. {55} Columbus' absence from Spain, however, left his good name without sponsors; and to satisfy detractors, a new commissioner was sent over with enlarged powers, even with authority to supersede Columbus in general command, if necessary. This emissary was Francisco de Bobadilla, who arrived at Santo Domingo with two caravels on the 23d of August, 1500, finding Diego in command, his brother, the Admiral, being absent. An issue was at once made. Diego refused to accede to the commissioner's orders till Columbus returned to judge the case himself; so Bobadilla assumed charge of the crown property violently, took possession of the Admiral's house, and when Columbus returned, he with his brother was arrested and put in irons. In this condition the prisoners were placed on shipboard, and sailed for Spain. The captain of the ship offered to remove the manacles: but Columbus would not permit it, being determined to land in Spain bound as he was; and so he did. The effect of his degradation was to his advantage; sovereigns and people were shocked at the sight; and Ferdinand and Isabella hastened to make amends by receiving him with renewed favor. It was soon apparent that everything reasonable would be granted him by the monarchs, and that he could have all he might wish short of receiving a new lease of power in the islands, which the sovereigns were determined to see pacified at least before Columbus should again assume government of them. The Admiral had not forgotten his vow to wrest the Holy Sepulchre from the Infidel; but the monarchs did not accede to his wish to undertake it. Disappointed in this, he proposed a new voyage; and getting the royal countenance for this scheme, he was supplied with four vessels of from fifty to seventy tons each. … He sailed from Cadiz, May 9, 1502, accompanied by his brother Bartholomew and his son Fernando. The vessels reached San Domingo June 29. Bobadilla, whose rule of a year and a half had been an unhappy one, had given place to Nicholas de Ovando; and the fleet which brought the new governor—with Maldonado, Las Casas and others—now lay in the harbor waiting to receive Bobadilla for the return voyage. Columbus had been instructed to avoid Hispaniola; but now that one of his vessels leaked, and he needed to make repairs, he sent a boat ashore, asking permission to enter the harbor. He was refused, though a storm was impending. He sheltered his vessels as best he could, and rode out the gale. The fleet which had on board Bobadilla and Roldan, with their ill-gotten gains, was wrecked, and these enemies of Columbus were drowned. The Admiral found a small harbor where he could make his repairs; and then, July 14, sailed westward to find, as he supposed, the richer portions of India. … A landing was made on the coast of Honduras, August 14. Three days later the explorers landed again fifteen leagues farther east, and took possession of the country for Spain. Still east they went; and, in gratitude for safety after a long storm, they named a cape which they rounded, Gracias à Dios—a name still preserved at the point where the coast of Honduras begins to trend southward. Columbus was now lying ill on his bed, placed on deck, and was half the time in revery. Still the vessels coasted south," along and beyond the shores of Costa Rica; then turned with the bend of the coast to the northeast, until they reached Porto Bello, as we call it, where they found houses and orchards, and passed on "to the farthest spot of Bastidas' exploring, who had, in 1501, sailed westward along the northern coast of South America." There turning back, Columbus attempted to found a colony at Veragua, on the Costa Rica coast, where signs of gold were tempting. But the gold proved scanty, the natives hostile, and, the Admiral, withdrawing his colony, sailed away. "He abandoned one worm-eaten caravel at Porto Bello, and, reaching Jamaica, beached two others. A year of disappointment, grief, and want followed. Columbus clung to his wrecked vessels. His crew alternately mutinied at his side, and roved about the island. Ovando, at Hispaniola, heard of his straits, but only tardily and scantily relieved him. The discontented were finally humbled; and some ships, despatched by the Admiral's agent in Santo Domingo, at last reached him and brought him and his companions to that place, where Ovando received him with ostentatious kindness, lodging him in his house till Columbus departed for Spain, Sept. 12, 1504." Arriving in Spain in November, disheartened, broken with disease, neglected, it was not until the following May that he had strength enough to go to the court at Segovia, and then only to be coldly received by King Ferdinand—Isabella being dead. "While still hope was deferred, the infirmities of age and a life of hardships brought Columbus to his end; and on Ascension Day, the 20th of May, 1506, he died, with his son Diego and a few devoted friends by his bedside."

J. Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 2, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1, chapter 2 and 4.

      W. Irving,
      Life and Voyages of Columbus,
      book 10-18 (volume 2).

AMERICA: A. D. 1499-1500.
   The Voyages and Discoveries of Ojeda and Pinzon.
   The Second Voyage of Amerigo Vespucci.

   One of the most daring and resolute of the adventurers who
   accompanied Columbus on his second voyage (in 1493) was Alonzo
   de Ojeda. Ojeda quarrelled with the Admiral and returned to
   Spain in 1498. Soon afterwards, "he was provided by the Bishop
   Fonseca, Columbus' enemy, with a fragment of the map which the
   Admiral had sent to Ferdinand and Isabella, showing the
   discoveries which he had made in his last voyage. With this
   assistance Ojeda set sail for South America, accompanied by
   the pilot, Juan de la Cosá, who had accompanied Columbus in
   his first great voyage in 1492, and of whom Columbus
   complained that, 'being a clever man, he went about saying
   that he knew more than he did,' and also by Amerigo Vespucci.
   They set sail on the 20th of May, 1499, with four vessels, and
   after a passage of 27 days came in sight of the continent, 200
   leagues east of the Oronoco. At the end of June, they landed
   on the shores of Surinam, in six degrees of north latitude,
   and proceeding west saw the mouths of the Essequibo and
   Oronoco. Passing the Boca del Drago of Trinidad, they coasted
   westward till they reached the Capo de la Vela in Granada. It
   was in this voyage that was discovered the Gulf to which Ojeda
   gave the name of Venezuela, or Little Venice, on account of
   the cabins built on piles over the water, a mode of life which
   brought to his mind the water-city of the Adriatic.
   From the American coast Ojeda went to the Caribbee Islands,
   and on the 5th of September reached Yaguimo, in Hispaniola,
   where he raised a revolt against the authority of Columbus.
   His plans, however, were frustrated by Roldan and Escobar, the
   delegates of Columbus, and he was compelled to withdraw from
   the island. On the 5th of February, 1500, he returned,
   carrying with him to Cadiz an extraordinary number of slaves,
   from which he realized an enormous sum of money. At the
   beginning of December, 1499, the same year in which Ojeda set
   sail on his last voyage, another companion of Columbus, in his
   first voyage, Vicente Yañez Pinzon, sailed from Palos, was the
   first to cross the line on the American side of the Atlantic.
   and on the 20th of January, 1500, discovered Cape St.
   Augustine, to which he gave the name of Cabo Santa Maria de la
   Consolacion, whence returning northward he followed the
   westerly trending coast, and so discovered the mouth of the
   Amazon, which he named Paricura. Within a month after his
   departure from Palos, he was followed from the same port and
   on the same route by Diego de Lepe, who was the first to
   discover, at the mouth of the Oronoco, by means of a closed
   vessel, which only opened when it reached the bottom of the
   water, that, at a depth of eight fathoms and a half, the two
   lowest fathoms were salt water, but all above was fresh. Lepe
   also made the observation that beyond Cape St. Augustine,
   which he doubled, as well as Pinzon, the coast of Brazil
   trended south-west."

R. H. Major, Life of Prince Henry of Portugal, chapter 19.

ALSO IN: W. Irving, Life and Voyages of Columbus, volume 3, chapter 1-3.

AMERICA: A. D. 1500.
   Voyages of the Cortereals to the far North, and of Bastidas to
   the Isthmus of Darien.

"The Portuguese did not overlook the north while making their important discoveries to the south. Two vessels, probably in the spring of 1500, were sent out under Gaspar Cortereal. No journal or chart of the voyage is now in existence, hence little is known of its object or results. Still more dim is a previous voyage ascribed by Cordeiro to João Vaz Cortereal, father of Gaspar. … Touching at the Azores, Gaspar Cortereal, possibly following Cabot's charts, struck the coast of Newfoundland north of Cape Race, and sailing north discovered a land which he called Terra Verde, perhaps Greenland, but was stopped by ice at a river which he named Rio Nevado, whose location is unknown. Cortereal returned to Lisbon before the end of 1500. … In October of this same year Rodrigo de Bastidas sailed from Cadiz with two vessels. Touching the shores of South America near Isla Verde, which lies between Guadalupe and the main land, he followed the coast westward to El Retrete, or perhaps Nombre de Dios, on the Isthmus of Darien, in about 9° 30' North latitude. Returning he was wrecked on Española toward the end of 1501, and reached Cadiz in September, 1502. This being the first authentic voyage by Europeans to the territory herein defined as the Pacific States, such incidents as are known will be given hereafter."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1, page 113.

"We have Las Casas's authority for saying that Bastidas was a humane man toward the Indians. Indeed, he afterwards lost his life by this humanity; for, when governor of Santa Martha, not consenting to harass the Indians, he so alienated his men that a conspiracy was formed against him, and he was murdered in his bed. The renowned Vasco Nuñez [de Balboa] was in this expedition, and the knowledge he gained there had the greatest influence on the fortunes of his varied and eventful life."

Sir A. Helps, Spanish Conquest in America, book 5, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: J. G. Kohl, History of the Discovery of Maine, chapter 5.

R. Biddle, Memoir of Sebastian Cabot, book 2, chapters 3-5.

See, also, NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1514.
   Voyage of Cabral.
   The Third Voyage of Americus Vespucius.
   Exploration of the Brazilian coast for the King of Portugal.
   Curious evolution of the continental name "America."

"Affairs now became curiously complicated. King Emanuel of Portugal intrusted to Pedro Alvarez de Cabral the command of a fleet for Hindustan, to follow up the work of Gama and establish a Portuguese centre of trade on the Malabar coast. This fleet of 13 vessels, carrying about 1,200 men, sailed from Lisbon March 9, 1500. After passing the Cape Verde Islands, March 22, for some reason not clearly known, whether driven by stormy weather or seeking to avoid the calms that were apt to be troublesome on the Guinea coast, Cabral took a somewhat more westerly course than he realized, and on April 22, after a weary progress averaging less than 60 miles per day, he found himself on the coast of Brazil not far beyond the limit reached by Lepe. … Approaching it in such a way Cabral felt sure that this coast must fall to the east of the papal meridian. Accordingly on May day, at Porto Seguro in latitude 16° 30' South, he took formal possession of the country for Portugal, and sent Gaspar de Lemos in one of his ships back to Lisbon with the news. On May 22 Cabral weighed anchor and stood for the Cape of Good Hope. … Cabral called the land he had found Vera Cruz, a name which presently became Santa Cruz; but when Lemos arrived in Lisbon with the news he had with him some gorgeous paroquets, and among the earliest names on old maps of the Brazilian coast we find 'Land of Paroquets' and 'Land of the Holy Cross.' The land lay obviously so far to the east that Spain could not deny that at last there was something for Portugal out in the 'ocean sea.' Much interest was felt at Lisbon. King Emanuel began to prepare an expedition for exploring this new coast, and wished to secure the services of some eminent pilot and cosmographer familiar with the western waters. Overtures were made to Americus, a fact which proves that he had already won a high reputation. The overtures were accepted, for what reason we do not know, and soon after his return from the voyage with Ojeda, probably in the autumn of 1500, Americus passed from the service of Spain into that of Portugal. … On May 14, 1501, Vespucius, who was evidently principal pilot and guiding spirit in this voyage under unknown skies, set sail from Lisbon with three caravels. It is not quite clear who was chief captain, but M. Varnhagen has found reasons for believing that it was a certain Don Nuno Manuel. The first halt was made on the African coast at Cape Verde, the first week in June. … After 67 days of 'the vilest weather ever seen by man' they reached the coast of Brazil in latitude about 5° South, on the evening of the 16th of August, the festival-day of San Roque, whose name was accordingly given to the cape before which they dropped anchor. {57} From this point they slowly followed the coast to the southward, stopping now and then to examine the country. … It was not until All Saints day, the first of November, that they reached the bay in latitude 13° South, which is still known by the name which they gave it, Bahia de Todos Santos. On New Year's day, 1502, they arrived at the noble bay where 54 years later the chief city of Brazil was founded. They would seem to have mistaken it for the mouth of another huge river, like some that had already been seen in this strange world; for they called it Rio de Janeiro (River of January). Thence by February 15 they had passed Cape Santa Maria, when they left the coast and took a southeasterly course out into the ocean. Americus gives no satisfactory reason for this change of direction. … Perhaps he may have looked into the mouth of the river La Plata, which is a bay more than a hundred miles wide; and the sudden westward trend of the shore may have led him to suppose that he had reached the end of the continent. At any rate, he was now in longitude more than twenty degrees west of the meridian of Cape San Roque, and therefore unquestionably out of Portuguese waters. Clearly there was no use in going on and discovering lands which could belong only to Spain. This may account, I think, for the change of direction." The voyage southeastwardly was pursued until the little fleet had reached the icy and rocky coast of the island of South Georgia, in latitude 54° South. It was then decided to turn homeward. "Vespucius … headed straight North North East through the huge ocean, for Sierra Leone, and the distance of more than 4,000 miles was made—with wonderful accuracy, though Vespucius says nothing about that—in 33 days. … Thence, after some further delay, to Lisbon, where they arrived on the 7th of September, 1502. … Among all the voyages made during that eventful period there was none that as a feat of navigation surpassed this third of Vespucius, and there was none, except the first of Columbus, that outranked it in historical importance. For it was not only a voyage into the remotest stretches of the Sea of Darkness, but it was preeminently an incursion into the antipodal world of the Southern hemisphere. … A coast of continental extent, beginning so near the meridian of the Cape Verde islands and running southwesterly to latitude 35° South and perhaps beyond, did not fit into anybody's scheme of things. … It was land unknown to the ancients, and Vespucius was right in saying that he had beheld there things by the thousand which Pliny had never mentioned. It was not strange that he should call it a 'New World,' and in meeting with this phrase, on this first occasion in which it appears in any document with reference to any part of what we now call America, the reader must be careful not to clothe it with the meaning which it wears in our modern eyes. In using the expression 'New World' Vespucius was not thinking of the Florida coast which he had visited on a former voyage, nor of the 'islands of India' discovered by Columbus, nor even of the Pearl Coast which he had followed after the Admiral in exploring. The expression occurs in his letter to Lorenzo de' Medici, written from Lisbon in March or April, 1503, relating solely to this third voyage. The letter begins as follows: 'I have formerly written to you at sufficient length about my return from those new countries which in the ships and at the expense and command of the most gracious King of Portugal we have sought and found. It is proper to call them a new world.' Observe that it is only the new countries visited on this third voyage, the countries from Cape San Roque southward, that Vespucius thinks it proper to call a new world, and here is his reason for so calling them: 'Since among our ancestors there was no knowledge of them, and to all who hear of the affair it is most novel. For it transcends the ideas of the ancients, since most of them say that beyond the equator to the south there is no continent, but only the sea which they called the Atlantic, and if any of them asserted the existence of a continent there, they found many reasons for refusing to consider it a habitable country. But this last voyage of mine has proved that this opinion of theirs was erroneous and in every way contrary to the facts." … This expression 'Novus Mundus,' thus occurring in a private letter, had a remarkable career. Early in June, 1503, about the time when Americus was starting on his fourth voyage, Lorenzo died. By the beginning of 1504, a Latin version of the letter [translated by Giovanni Giocondo] was printed and published, with the title 'Mundus Novus.' … The little four-leaved tract, 'Mundus Novus,' turned out to be the great literary success of the day. M. Harisse has described at least eleven Latin editions probably published in the course of 1504, and by 1506 not less than eight editions of German versions had been issued. Intense curiosity was aroused by this announcement of the existence of a populous land beyond the equator and unknown (could such a thing be possible) to the ancients,—who did know something, at least, about the eastern parts of the Asiatic continent which Columbus was supposed to have reached. The "Novus Mundus," so named, began soon to be represented on maps and globes, generally as a great island or quasi-continent lying on and below the equator. "Europe, Asia and Africa were the three parts of the earth [previously known], and so this opposite region, hitherto unknown, but mentioned by Mela and indicated by Ptolemy, was the Fourth Part. We can now begin to understand the intense and wildly absorbing interest with which people read the brief story of the third voyage of Vespucius, and we can see that in the nature of that interest there was nothing calculated to bring it into comparison with the work of Columbus. The two navigators were not regarded as rivals in doing the same thing, but as men who had done two very different things; and to give credit to one was by no means equivalent to withholding credit from the other." In 1507, Martin Waldseemüller, professor of geography at Saint-Dié, published a small treatise entitled "Cosmographic Introductio," with that second of the two known letters of Vespucius—the one addressed to Soderini, of which an account is given above (A. D. 1497-1498)—appended to it. "In this rare book occurs the first suggestion of the name America. {58} After having treated of the division of the earth's inhabited surface into three parts—Europe, Asia, and Africa—Waldseemüller speaks of the discovery of a Fourth Part," and says: "'Wherefore I do not see what is rightly to hinder us from calling it Amerige or America, i. e., the land of Americus, after its discoverer Americus, a man of sagacious mind, since both Europe and Asia have got their names from women.' … Such were the winged words but for which, as M. Harisse reminds us, the western hemisphere might have come to be known as Atlantis, or Hesperides, or Santa Cruz, or New India, or perhaps Columbia. … In about a quarter of a century the first stage in the development of the naming of America had been completed. That stage consisted of five distinct steps: 1. Americus called the regions visited by him beyond the equator 'a new world' because they were unknown to the ancients; 2. Giocondo made this striking phrase 'Mundus Novus' into a title for his translation of the letter. … 3. the name Mundus Novus got placed upon several maps as an equivalent for Terra Sanctæ Crucis, or what we call Brazil; 4. the suggestion was made that Mundus Novus was the Fourth Part of the earth, and might properly be named America after its discoverer; 5. the name America thus got placed upon several maps [the first, so far as known, being a map ascribed to Leonardo da Vinci and published about 1514, and the second a globe made in 1515 by Johann Schöner, at Nuremberg] as an equivalent for what we call Brazil, and sometimes came to stand alone as an equivalent for what we call South America, but still signified only a part of the dry land beyond the Atlantic to which Columbus had led the way. … This wider meaning [of South America] became all the more firmly established as its narrower meaning was usurped by the name Brazil. Three centuries before the time of Columbus the red dye-wood called brazil-wood was an article of commerce, under that same name, in Italy and Spain. It was one of the valuable things brought from the East, and when the Portuguese found the same dye-wood abundant in those tropical forests that had seemed so beautiful to Vespucius, the name Brazil soon became fastened upon the country and helped to set free the name America from its local associations." When, in time, and by slow degrees, the great fact was learned, that all the lands found beyond the Atlantic by Columbus and his successors, formed part of one continental system, and were all to be embraced in the conception of a New World, the name which had become synonymous with New World was then naturally extended to the whole. The evolutionary process of the naming of the western hemisphere as a whole was thus made complete in 1541, by Mercator, who spread the name America in large letters upon a globe which he constructed that year, so that part of it appeared upon the northern and part upon the southern continent.

J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 7 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: W. B. Scaife, America: Its Geographical History, section 4.

R. H. Major, Life of Prince Henry of Portugal, chapter 19.

      J. Winsor,
      Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 2, ch, 2, notes.

      H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, pages 99-112, and 123-125.

AMERICA: A. D. 1501-1504.
   Portuguese, Norman and Breton fishermen on the Newfoundland

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

AMERICA: A. D. 1502.
   The Second Voyage of Ojeda.

The first voyage of Alonzo de Ojeda, from which he returned to Spain in June 1500, was profitable to nothing but his reputation as a bold and enterprising explorer. By way of reward, he was given "a grant of land in Hispaniola, and likewise the government of Coquibacoa, which place he had discovered [and which he had called Venezuela]. He was authorized to fit out a number of ships at his own expense and to prosecute discoveries on the coast of Terra Firma. … With four vessels, Ojeda set sail for the Canaries, in 1502, and thence proceeded to the Gulf of Paria, from which locality he found his way to Coquibacoa. Not liking this poor country, he sailed on to the Bay of Honda, where he determined to found his settlement, which was, however, destined to be of short duration. Provisions very soon became scarce; and one of his partners, who had been sent to procure supplies from Jamaica, failed to return until Ojeda's followers were almost in a state of mutiny. The result was that the whole colony set sail for Hispaniola, taking the governor with them in chains. All that Ojeda gained by his expedition was that he at length came off winner in a lawsuit, the costs of which, however, left him a ruined man."

      R G. Watson,
      Spanish and Portuguese South America,
      book 1, chapter 1.

AMERICA: A. D. 1503-1504.
   The Fourth Voyage of Americus Vespucius.
   First Settlement in Brazil.

In June, 1503, "Amerigo sailed again from Lisbon, with six ships. The object of this voyage was to discover a certain island called Melcha, which was supposed to lie west of Calicut, and to be as famous a mart in the commerce of the Indian world as Cadiz was in Europe. They made the Cape de Verds, and then, contrary to the judgment of Vespucci and of all the fleet, the Commander persisted in standing for Serra Leoa." The Commander's ship was lost, and Vespucci, with one vessel, only, reached the coast of the New World, finding a port which is thought to have been Bahia. Here "they waited above two months in vain expectation of being joined by the rest of the squadron. Having lost all hope of this they coasted on for 260 leagues to the Southward, and there took port again in 18° S. 35° West of the meridian of Lisbon. Here they remained five months, upon good terms with the natives, with whom some of the party penetrated forty leagues into the interior; and here they erected a fort, in which they left 24 men who had been saved from the Commander's ship. They gave them 12 guns, besides other arms, and provisions for six months; then loaded with brazil [wood], sailed homeward and returned in safety. … The honour, therefore, of having formed the first settlement in this country is due to Amerigo Vespucci. It does not appear that any further attention was as this time paid to it. … But the cargo of brazil which Vespucci had brought home tempted private adventurers, who were content with peaceful gains, to trade thither for that valuable wood; and this trade became so well known, that in consequence the coast and the whole country obtained the name of Brazil, notwithstanding the holier appellation [Santa Cruz] which Cabral had given it."

R. Southey, History of Brazil, volume 1, chapter 1.


AMERICA: A. D. 1509-1511.
   The Expeditions of Ojeda and Nicuesa to the Isthmus.
   The Settlement at Darien.

"For several years after his ruinous, though successful lawsuit, we lose all traces of Alonzo de Ojeda, excepting that we are told he made another voyage to Coquibacoa [Venezuela], in 1505. No record remains of this expedition, which seems to have been equally unprofitable with the preceding, for we find him, in 1508, in the island of Hispaniola as poor in purse, though as proud in spirit, as ever. … About this time the cupidity of King Ferdinand was greatly excited by the accounts by Columbus of the gold mines of Veragua, in which the admiral fancied he had discovered the Aurea Chersonesus of the ancients, whence King Solomon procured the gold used in building the temple of Jerusalem. Subsequent voyagers had corroborated the opinion of Columbus as to the general riches of the coast of Terra Firma; King Ferdinand resolved, therefore, to found regular colonies along that coast, and to place the whole under some capable commander." Ojeda was recommended for this post, but found a competitor in one of the gentlemen of the Spanish court, Diego de Nicuesa. "King Ferdinand avoided the dilemma by favoring both; not indeed by furnishing them with ships and money, but by granting patents and dignities, which cost nothing, and might bring rich returns. He divided that part of the continent which lies along the Isthmus of Darien into two provinces, the boundary line running through the Gulf of Uraba. The eastern part, extending to Cape de la Vela, was called New Andalusia, and the government of it given to Ojeda. The other to the west [called Castilla del Oro], including Veragua, and reaching, to Cape Gracias à Dios, was assigned to Nicuesa. The island of Jamaica was given to the two governors in common, as a place whence to draw supplies of provisions." Slender means for the equipment of Ojeda's expedition were supplied by the veteran pilot, Juan de la Cosa, who accompanied him as his lieutenant. Nicuesa was more amply provided. The rival armaments arrived at San Domingo about the same time (in 1509), and much quarreling between the two commanders ensued. Ojeda found a notary in San Domingo, Martin Fernandez de Enciso, who had money which he consented to invest in the enterprise, and who promised to follow him with an additional ship-load of recruits and supplies. Under this arrangement Ojeda made ready to sail in advance of his competitor, embarking November 10, 1509. Among those who sailed with him was Francisco Pizarro, the future conqueror of Peru. Ojeda, by his energy, gained time enough to nearly ruin his expedition before Nicuesa reached the scene; for, having landed at Carthagena, he made war upon the natives, pursued them recklessly into the interior of the country, with 70 men, and was overwhelmed by the desperate savages, escaping with only one companion from their poisoned arrows. His faithful friend, the pilot, Juan de la Cosa, was among the slain, and Ojeda himself, hiding in the forest, was nearly dead of hunger and exposure when found and rescued by a searching party from his ships. At this juncture the fleet of Nicuesa made its appearance. Jealousies were forgotten in a common rage against the natives and the two expeditions were joined in an attack on the Indian villages which spared nothing. Nicuesa then proceeded to Veragua, while Ojeda founded a town, which he called San Sebastian, at the east end of the Gulf of Uraba. Incessantly harassed by the natives, terrified by the effects of the poison which these used in their warfare, and threatened with starvation by the rapid exhaustion of its supplies, the settlement lost courage and hope. Enciso and his promised ship were waited for in vain. At length there came a vessel which certain piratical adventurers at Hispaniola had stolen, and which brought some welcome provisions, eagerly bought at an exorbitant price. Ojeda, half recovered from a poisoned wound, which he had treated heroically with red-hot plates of iron, engaged the pirates to convey him to Hispaniola, for the procuring of supplies. The voyage was a disastrous one, resulting in shipwreck on the coast of Cuba and a month of desperate wandering in the morasses of the island. Ojeda survived all these perils and sufferings, made his way to Jamaica, and from Jamaica to San Domingo, found that his partner Enciso had sailed for the colony long before, with abundant supplies, but could learn nothing more. Nor could he obtain for himself any means of returning to San Sebastian, or of dispatching relief to the place. Sick, penniless and disheartened, he went into a convent and died. Meantime the despairing colonists at San Sebastian waited until death had made them few enough to be all taken on board of the two little brigantines which were left to them; then they sailed away, Pizarro in command. One of the brigantines soon went down in a squall; the other made its way to the harbor of Carthagena, where it found the tardy Enciso, searching for his colony. Enciso, under his commission, now took command, and insisted upon going to San Sebastian. There the old experiences were soon renewed, and even Enciso was ready to abandon the deadly place. The latter had brought with him a needy cavalier, Vasco Nuñez de Balboa—so needy that he smuggled himself on board Enciso's ship in a cask to escape his creditors. Vasco Nuñez, who had coasted this region with Bastidas, in 1500, now advised a removal of the colony to Darien, on the opposite coast of the Gulf of Uraba. His advice, which was followed, proved good, and the hopes of the settlers were raised; but Enciso's modes of government proved irksome to them. Then Balboa called attention to the fact that, when they crossed the Gulf of Uraba, they passed out of the territory covered by the patent to Ojeda, under which Enciso was commissioned, and into that granted to Nicuesa. On this suggestion Enciso was promptly deposed and two alcaldes were elected, Balboa being one. While events in one corner of Nicuesa's domain were thus establishing a colony for that ambitious governor, he himself, at the other extremity of it, was faring badly. He had suffered hardships, separation from most of his command and long abandonment on a dc solate coast; had rejoined his followers after great suffering, only to suffer yet more in their company, until less than one hundred remained of the 700 who sailed with him a few months before. The settlement at Veragua had been deserted, and another, named Nombre de Dios undertaken, with no improvement of circumstances. In this situation he was rejoiced, at last, by the arrival of one of his lieutenants, Rodrigo de Colmenares, who came with supplies. Colmenares brought tidings, moreover, of the prosperous colony at Darien, which he had discovered on his way, with an invitation to Nicuesa to come and assume the government of it. He accepted the invitation with delight; but, alas! the community at Darien had repented of it before he reached them, and they refused to receive him when he arrived. Permitted finally to land, he was seized by a treacherous party among the colonists—to whom Balboa is said to have opposed all the resistance in his power—was put on board of an old and crazy brigantine, with seventeen of his friends, and compelled to take an oath that he would sail straight to Spain. "The frail bark set sail on the first of March, 1511, and steered across the Caribbean Sea for the island of Hispaniola, but was never seen or heard of more."

      W. Irving,
      Life and Voyages of Columbus and his Companions,
      volume 3.

ALSO IN H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1, chapter 6.


AMERICA: A. D. 1511.
   The Spanish conquest and occupation of Cuba.

See CUBA: A. D. 1511.

AMERICA: A. D. 1512.
   The Voyage of Ponce de Leon in quest of the Fountain of Youth,
   and his Discovery of Florida.

"Whatever may have been the Southernmost point reached by Cabot in coasting America on his return, it is certain that he did not land in Florida, and that the honour of first exploring that country is due to Juan Ponce de Leon. This cavalier, who was governor of Puerto Rico, induced by the vague traditions circulated by the natives of the West Indies, that there was a country in the north possessing a fountain whose waters restored the aged to youth, made it an object of his ambition to be the first to discover this marvellous region. With this view, he resigned the governorship, and set sail with three caravels on the 3d of March 1512. Steering N. ¼ N., he came upon a country covered with flowers and verdure; and as the day of his discovery happened to be Palm Sunday, called by the Spaniards' Pasqua Florida,' he gave it the name of Florida from this circumstance. He landed on the 2d of April, and took possession of the country in the name of the king of Castile. The warlike people of the coast of Cautio (a name given by the Indians to all the country lying between Cape Cañaveral and the southern point of Florida) soon, however, compelled him to retreat, and he pursued his exploration of the coast as far as 30° 8' North latitude, and on the 8th of May doubled Cape Cañaveral. Then retracing his course to Puerto Rico, in the hope of finding the island of Bimini, which he believed to be the Land of Youth, and described by the Indians as opposite to Florida, he discovered the Bahamas, and some other islands, previously unknown. Bad weather compelling him to put into the isle of Guanima to repair damages, he despatched one of his caravels, under the orders of Jaun Perez de Ortubia and of the pilot Anton de Alaminos, to gain information respecting the desired land, which he had as yet been totally unable to discover. He returned to Puerto Rico on the 21st of September; a few days afterwards, Ortubia arrived also with news of Bimini. He reported that he had explored the island,—which he described as large, well wooded, and watered by numerous streams,—but he had failed in discovering the fountain. Oviedo places Bimini at 40 leagues west of the island of Bahama. Thus all the advantages which Ponce de Leon promised himself from this voyage turned to the profit of geography: the title of 'Adelantado of Bimini and Florida,' which was conferred upon him, was purely honorary; but the route taken by him in order to return to Puerto Rico, showed the advantage of making the homeward voyage to Spain by the Bahama Channel."

      W. B. Rye,
      Introduction to "Discovery and Conquest of Terra Florida,
      by a gentleman of Elvas" (Hakluyt Society, 1851).

      ALSO IN
      G. R. Fairbanks,
      History of Florida,
      chapter 1

AMERICA: A. D. 1513-1517.
   The discovery of the Pacific by Vasco Nuñez de Balboa.
   Pedrarias Davila on the Isthmus.

With Enciso deposed from authority and Nicuesa sent adrift, Vasco Nuñez de Balboa seems to have easily held the lead in affairs at Darien, though not without much opposition; for faction and turbulence were rife. Enciso was permitted to carry his grievances and complaints to Spain, but Balboa's colleague, Zamudio, went with him, and another comrade proceeded to Hispaniola, both of them well-furnished with gold. For the quest of gold had succeeded at last. The Darien adventurers had found considerable quantities in the possession of the surrounding natives, and were gathering it with greedy hands. Balboa had the prudence to establish friendly relations with one of the most important of the neighboring caciques, whose comely daughter he wedded—according to the easy customs of the country—and whose ally he became in wars with the other caciques. By gift and tribute, therefore as well as by plunder, he harvested more gold than any before him had found since the ransacking of the New World began. But what they obtained seemed little compared with the treasures reported to them as existing beyond the near mountains and toward the south. One Indian youth, son of a friendly cacique, particularly excited their imaginations by the tale which he told of another great sea, not far to the west, on the southward-stretching shores of which were countries that teemed with every kind of wealth. He told them, however, that they would need a thousand men to fight their way to this Sea. Balboa gave such credence to the story that he sent envoys to Spain to solicit forces from the king for an adequate expedition across the mountains. They sailed in October, 1512, but did not arrive in Spain until the following May. They found Balboa in much disfavor at the court. Enciso and the friends of the unfortunate Nicuesa had unitedly ruined him by their complaints, and the king had caused criminal proceedings against him to be commenced. Meantime, some inkling of these hostilities had reached Balboa, himself, conveyed by a vessel which bore to him, at the same time, a commission as captain-general from the authorities in Hispaniola. He now resolved to become the discoverer of the ocean which his Indian friends described, and of the rich lands bordering it, before his enemies could interfere with him. "Accordingly, early in September, 1513, he set out on his renowned expedition for finding 'the other sea,' accompanied by 190 men well armed, and by dogs, which were of more avail than men, and by Indian slaves to carry the burdens. He went by sea to the territory of his father-in-law, King Careta, by whom he was well received, and accompanied by whose Indians he moved on into Poncha's territory." Quieting the fears of this cacique, he passed his country without fighting. The next chief encountered, named Quarequa, attempted resistance, but was routed, with a great slaughter of his people, and Balboa pushed on. "On the 25th of September, 1513, he came near to the top of a mountain from whence the South Sea was visible. {61} The distance from Poncha's chief town to this point was forty leagues, reckoned then six days' journey; but Vasco Nuñez and his men took twenty-five days to accomplish it, as they suffered much from the roughness of the ways and from the want of provisions. A little before Vasco Nuñez reached the height, Quarequa's Indians informed him of his near approach to the sea. It was a sight in beholding which, for the first time, any man would wish to be alone. Vasco Nuñez bade his men sit down while he ascended, and then, in solitude, looked down upon the vast Pacific—the first man of the Old World, so far as we know, who had done so. Falling on his knees, he gave thanks to God for the favour shown to him in his being permitted to discover the Sea of the South. Then with his hand be beckoned to his men to come up. When they had come, both he and they knelt down and poured forth their thanks to God. He then addressed them. … Having … addressed his men, Vasco Nuñez proceeded to take formal possession, on behalf of the kings of Castile, of the sea and of all that was in it; and in order to make memorials of the event, he cut down trees, formed crosses, and heaped up stones. He also inscribed the names of the monarchs of Castile upon great trees in the vicinity." Afterwards, when he had descended the western slope and found the shore, "he entered the sea up to his thighs, having his sword on, and with his shield in his hand; then he called the by-standers to witness how he touched with his person and took possession of this sea for the kings of Castile, and declared that he would defend the possession of it against all comers. After this, Vasco Nuñez made friends in the usual manner, first conquering and then negotiating with" the several chiefs or caciques whose territories came in his way. He explored the Gulf of San Miguel, finding much wealth of pearls in the region, and returned to Darien by a route which crossed the isthmus considerably farther to the north, reaching his colony on the 29th of January, 1514, having been absent nearly five months. "His men at Darien received him with exultation, and he lost no time in sending his news, 'such signal and new news,' … to the King of Spain, accompanying it with rich presents. His letter, which gave a detailed account of his journey, and which, for its length, was compared by Peter Martyr to the celebrated letter that came to the senate from Tiberius, contained in every page thanks to God that he had escaped from such great dangers and labours. Both the letter and the presents were intrusted to a man named Arbolanche, who departed from Darien about the beginning of March, 1514. … Vasco Nuñez's messenger, Arbolanche, reached the court of Spain too late for his master's interests." The latter had already been superseded in the Governorship, and his successor was on the way to take his authority from him. The new governor was one Pedrarias De Avila, or Davila, as the name is sometimes written;—an envious and malignant old man, under whose rule on the isthmus the destructive energy of Spanish conquest rose to its meanest and most heartless and brainless development. Conspicuously exposed as he was to the jealousy and hatred of Pedrarias, Vasco Nuñez was probably doomed to ruin, in some form, from the first. At one time, in 1516, there seemed to be a promise for him of alliance with his all-powerful enemy, by a marriage with one of the governor's daughters, and he received the command of an expedition which again crossed the isthmus, carrying ships, and began the exploration of the Pacific. But circumstances soon arose which gave Pedrarias all opportunity to accuse the explorer of treasonable designs and to accomplish his arrest—Francisco Pizarro being the officer fitly charged with the execution of the governor's warrant. Brought in chains to Acla, Vasco Nuñez was summarily tried, found guilty and led forth to swift death, laying his head upon the block (A. D. 1517). "Thus perished Vasco Nuñez de Balboa, in the forty-second year of his age, the man who, since the time of Columbus, had shown the most statesmanlike and warriorlike powers in that part of the world, but whose career only too much resembles that of Ojeda, Nicuesa, and the other unfortunate commanders who devastated those beautiful regions of the earth."

Sir A. Helps, Spanish Conquest in America, book 6 (volume 1).

"If I have applied strong terms of denunciation to Pedrarias Dávila, it is because he unquestionably deserves it. He is by far the worst man who came officially to the New World during its early government. In this all authorities agree. And all agree that Vasco Nuñez was not deserving of death."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1, chapter 8-12 (foot-note, page 458).

      ALSO IN
      W. Irving,
      Life and Voyages of Columbus and His Companions,
      volume 3.

AMERICA: A. D. 1515.
   Discovery of La Plata by Juan de Solis.

See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1518.
   The Spaniards find Mexico.

   "An hidalgo of Cuba, named Hernandez de Cordova, sailed with
   three vessels on an expedition to one of the neighbouring
   Bahama Islands, in quest of Indian slaves (February 8, 1517). He
   encountered a succession of heavy gales which drove him far
   out of his course, and at the end of three weeks he found
   himself on a strange and unknown coast. On landing and asking
   the name of the country, he was answered by the natives
   'Tectelan,' meaning 'I do not understand you,' but which the
   Spaniards, misinterpreting into the name of the place, easily
   corrupted into Yucatan. Some writers give a different
   etymology. … Bernal Diaz says the word came from the
   vegetable 'yuca' and 'tale,' the name for a hillock in which
   it is planted. … M. Waldeck finds a much more plausible
   derivation in the Indian word 'Ouyouckatan,' 'listen to what
   they say.' … Cordova had landed on the north-eastern end of
   the peninsula, at Cape Catoche. He was astonished at the size
   and solid materials of the buildings constructed of stone and
   lime, so different from the frail tenements of reeds and
   rushes which formed the habitations of the islanders. He was
   struck, also, with the higher cultivation of the soil, and
   with the delicate texture of the cotton garments and gold
   ornaments of the natives. Everything indicated a civilization
   far superior to anything he had before witnessed in the New
   World. He saw the evidence of a different race, moreover, in
   the warlike spirit of the people. … Wherever they landed
   they were met with the most deadly hostility.
   Cordova himself, in one of his skirmishes with the Indians,
   received more than a dozen wounds, and one only of his party
   escaped unhurt. At length, when he had coasted the peninsula
   as far as Campeachy, he returned to Cuba, which he reached
   after an absence of several months. … The reports he had
   brought back of the country, and, still more, the specimens of
   curiously wrought gold, convinced Velasquez [governor of Cuba]
   of the importance of this discovery, and he prepared with all
   despatch to avail himself of it. He accordingly fitted out a
   little squadron of four vessels for the newly discovered
   lands, and placed it under the command of his nephew, Juan de
   Grijalva, a man on whose probity, prudence, and attachment to
   himself he knew he could rely. The fleet left the port of St.
   Jago de Cuba, May 1, 1518. … Grijalva soon passed over to
   the continent and coasted the peninsula, touching at the same
   places as his predecessor. Everywhere he was struck, like him,
   with the evidences of a higher civilization, especially in the
   architecture; as he well might be, since this was the region
   of those extraordinary remains which have become recently the
   subject of so much speculation. He was astonished, also, at
   the sight of large stone crosses, evidently objects of
   worship, which he met with in various places. Reminded by
   these circumstances of his own country, he gave the peninsula
   the name New Spain, a name since appropriated to a much wider
   extent of territory. Wherever Grijalva landed, he experienced
   the same unfriendly reception as Cordova, though he suffered
   less, being better prepared to meet it." He succeeded,
   however, at last, in opening a friendly conference and traffic
   with one of the chiefs, on the Rio de Tabasco, and "had the
   satisfaction of receiving, for a few worthless toys and
   trinkets, a rich treasure of jewels, gold ornaments and
   vessels, of the most fantastic forms and workmanship. Grijalva
   now thought that in this successful traffic—successful beyond
   his most sanguine expectations—he had accomplished the chief
   object of his mission." He therefore dispatched Alvarado, one
   of his captains, to Velasquez, with the treasure acquired, and
   continued his voyage along the coast, as far as the province
   of Panuco, returning to Cuba at the end of about six months
   from his departure. "On reaching the Island, he was surprised
   to learn that another and more formidable armament had been
   fitted out to follow up his own discoveries, and to find
   orders at the same time from the governor, couched in no very
   courteous language, to repair at once to St. Jago. He was
   received by that personage, not merely with coldness, but with
   reproaches, for having neglected so fair an opportunity of
   establishing a colony in the country he had visited."

W. H. Prescott, Conquest of Mexico, book 2, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: C. St. J. Fancourt, History of Yucatan, chapter 1-2.

Bernal Diaz del Castillo, Memoirs, volume 1, chapter 2-19.

AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.
   The Spanish Conquest of Mexico.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1519-1524.

AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.
   The Voyage of Magellan and Sebastian del Cano.
   The New World passed and the Earth circumnavigated.
   The Congress at Badajos.

Fernando Magellan, or Magalhaes, was "a disaffected Portuguese gentleman who had served his country for five years in the Indies under Albuquerque, and understood well the secrets of the Eastern trade. In 1517, conjointly with his geographical and astronomical friend, Ruy Falerio, another unrequited Portuguese, he offered his services to the Spanish court. At the same time these two friends proposed, not only to prove that the Moluccas were within the Spanish lines of demarkation, but to discover a passage thither different from that used by the Portuguese. Their schemes were listened to, adopted and carried out. The Straits of Magellan were discovered, the broad South Sea was crossed, the Ladrones and the Phillipines were inspected, the Moluccas were passed through, the Cape of Good Hope was doubled on the homeward voyage, and the globe was circumnavigated, all in less than three years, from 1519 to 1522. Magellan lost his life, and only one of his five ships returned [under Sebastian del Cano] to tell the marvelous story. The magnitude of the enterprise was equalled only by the magnitude of the results. The globe for the first time began to assume its true character and size in the minds of men, and the minds of men began soon to grasp and utilize the results of this circumnavigation for the enlargement of trade and commerce, and for the benefit of geography, astronomy, mathematics, and the other sciences. This wonderful story, is it not told in a thousand books? … The Portuguese in India and the Spiceries, as well as at home, now seeing the inevitable conflict approaching, were thoroughly aroused to the importance of maintaining their rights. They openly asserted them, and pronounced this trade with the Moluccas by the Spanish an encroachment on their prior discoveries and possession, as well as a violation of the Papal Compact of 1494, and prepared themselves energetically for defense and offense. On the other hand, the Spaniards as openly declared that Magellan's fleet carried the first Christians to the Moluccas and by friendly intercourse with the kings of those islands, reduced them to Christian subjection and brought back letters and tribute to Cæsar. Hence these kings and their people came under the protection of Charles V. Besides this, the Spaniards claimed that the Moluccas were within the Spanish half, and were therefore doubly theirs. … Matters thus waxing hot, King John of Portugal begged Charles V. to delay dispatching his new fleet until the disputed points could be discussed and settled. Charles, who boasted that he had rather be right than rich, consented, and the ships were staid. These two Christian princes, who owned all the newly discovered and to be discovered parts of the whole world between them by deed of gift of the Pope, agreed to meet in Congress at Badajos by their representatives, to discuss and settle all matters in dispute about the division of their patrimony, and to define and stake out their lands and waters, both parties agreeing to abide by the decision of the Congress. Accordingly, in the early spring of 1524, up went to this little border town four-and-twenty wise men, or thereabouts, chosen by each prince. They comprised the first judges, lawyers, mathematicians, astronomers, cosmographers, navigators and pilots of the land, among whose names were many honored now as then—such as Fernando Columbus, Sebastian Cabot, Estevan Gomez, Diego Ribero, etc. … The debates and proceedings of this Congress, as reported by Peter Martyr, Oviedo, and Gomara, are very amusing, but no regular joint decision could be reached, the Portuguese declining to subscribe to the verdict of the Spaniards, inasmuch as it deprived them of the Moluccas. So each party published and proclaimed its own decision after the Congress broke up in confusion on the last day of May, 1524. It was, however, tacitly understood that the Moluccas fell to Spain, while Brazil, to the extent of two hundred leagues from Cape St. Augustine, fell to the Portuguese. … However, much good resulted from this first geographical Congress. The extent and breadth of the Pacific were appreciated, and the influence of the Congress was soon after seen in the greatly improved maps, globes, and charts."

H. Stevens, History and Geographical Notes, 1453-1530.


"For three months and twenty days he [Magellan] sailed on the Pacific and never saw inhabited land. He was compelled by famine to strip off the pieces of skin and leather wherewith his rigging was here and there bound, to soak them in the sea and then soften them with warm water, so as to make a wretched food; to eat the sweepings of the ship and other loathsome matter'; to drink water gone putrid by keeping; and yet he resolutely held on his course, though his men were dying daily. … In the whole history of human undertakings there is nothing that exceeds, if indeed there is anything that equals, this voyage of Magellan's. That of Columbus dwindles away in comparison. It is a display of superhuman courage, superhuman perseverance."

J. W. Draper, History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, chapter 19.

"The voyage [of Magellan] … was doubtless the greatest feat of navigation that has ever been performed, and nothing can be imagined that would surpass it except a journey to some other planet. It has not the unique historic position of the first voyage of Columbus, which brought together two streams of human life that had been disjoined since the Glacial Period. But as an achievement in ocean navigation that voyage of Columbus sinks into insignificance by the side of it, and when the earth was a second time encompassed by the greatest English sailor of his age, the advance in knowledge, as well as the different route chosen, had much reduced the difficulty of the performance. When we consider the frailness of the ships, the immeasurable extent of the unknown, the mutinies that were prevented or quelled, and the hardships that were endured, we can have no hesitation in speaking of Magellan as the prince of navigators."

J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 7 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN
      Lord Stanley of Alderley,
      The First Voyage Round the World (Hakluyt Society, 1874)

      R. Kerr,
      Collection of Voyages,
      volume 10.

AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1525.
   The Voyages of Garay and Ayllon.
   Discovery of the mouth of the Mississippi.
   Exploration of the Carolina Coast.

In 1519, Francisco de Garay, governor of Jamaica, who had been one of the companions of Columbus on his second voyage, having heard of the richness and beauty of Yucatan, "at his own charge sent out four ships well equipped, and with good pilots, under the command of Alvarez Alonso de Pineda. His professed object was to search for some strait, west of Florida, which was not yet certainly known to form a part of the continent. The strait having been sought for in vain, his ships turned toward the west, attentively examining the ports, rivers, inhabitants, and everything else that seemed worthy of remark; and especially noticing the vast volume of water brought down by one very large stream. At last they came upon the track of Cortes near Vera Cruz. … The carefully drawn map of the pilots showed distinctly the Mississippi, which, in this earliest authentic trace of its outlet, bears the name of the Espiritu Santo. … But Garay thought not of the Mississippi and its valley: he coveted access to the wealth of Mexico; and, in 1523, lost fortune and life ingloriously in a dispute with Cortes for the government of the country on the river Panuco. A voyage for slaves brought the Spaniards in 1520 still farther to the north. A company of seven, of whom the most distinguished was Lucas Vasquez de Ayllon, fitted out two slave ships from St. Domingo, in quest of laborers for their plantations and mines. From the Bahama Islands they passed to the coast of South Carolina, which was called Chicora. The Combahee river received the name of Jordan; the name of St. Helena, whose day is the 18th of August, was given to a cape, but now belongs to the sound." Luring a large number of the confiding natives on board their ships the adventurers treacherously set sail with them; but one of the vessels foundered at sea, and most of the captives on the other sickened and died. Vasquez de Ayllon was rewarded for his treacherous exploit by being authorized and appointed to make the conquest of Chicora. "For this bolder enterprise the undertaker wasted his fortune in preparations; in 1525 his largest ship was stranded in the river Jordan; many of his men were killed by the natives; and he himself escaped only to suffer from the consciousness of having done nothing worthy of honor. Yet it may be that ships, sailing under his authority, made the discovery of the Chesapeake and named it the bay of St. Mary; and perhaps even entered the bay of Delaware, which, in Spanish geography, was called St. Christopher's."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States, part 1, chapter 2.

ALSO IN H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 4, chapter 11, and volume 5, chapters 6-7.

      W. G. Simms,
      History of South Carolina,
      book 1, chapter 1.

AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.
   The Voyages of Verrazano.
   First undertakings of France in the New World.

"It is constantly admitted in our history that our kings paid no attention to America before the year 1523. Then Francis I., wishing to excite the emulation of his subjects in regard to navigation and commerce, as he had already so successfully in regard to the sciences and fine arts, ordered John Verazani, who was in his service, to go and explore the New Lands, which began to be much talked of in France. … Verazani was accordingly sent, in 1523, with four ships to discover North America; but our historians have not spoken of his first expedition, and we should be in ignorance of it now, had not Ramusio preserved in his great collection a letter of Verazani himself, addressed to Francis I. and dated Dieppe, July 8, 1524. In it he supposes the king already informed of the success and details of the voyage, so that he contents himself with stating that he sailed from Dieppe in four vessels, which he had safely brought back to that port. In January, 1524, he sailed with two ships, the Dauphine and the Normande, to cruise against the Spaniards. Towards the close of the same year, or early in the next, he again fitted out the Dauphine, on which, embarking with 50 men and provisions for eight months, he first sailed to the island of Madeira."

Father Charlevoix, History of New France (translated by J. G. Shea), book 1.


"On the 17th of January, 1524, he [Verrazano] parted from the 'Islas desiertas,' a well-known little group of islands near Madeira, and sailed at first westward, running in 25 days 500 leagues, with a light and pleasant easterly breeze, along the northern border of the trade winds, in about 30° North. His track was consequently nearly like that of Columbus on his first voyage. On the 14th of February he met 'with as violent a hurricane as any ship ever encountered.' But he weathered it, and pursued his voyage to the west, 'with a little deviation to the north;' when, after having sailed 24 days and 400 leagues, he descried a new country which, as he supposed, had never before been seen either by modern or ancient navigators. The country was very low. From the above description it is evident that Verrazano came in sight of the east coast of the United States about the 10th of March, 1524. He places his land-fall in 34° North, which is the latitude of Cape Fear." He first sailed southward, for about 50 leagues, he states, looking for a harbor and finding none. He then turned northward. "I infer that Verrazano saw little of the coast of South Carolina and nothing of that of Georgia, and that in these regions he can, at most, be called the discoverer only of the coast of North Carolina. … He rounded Cape Hatteras, and at a distance of about 50 leagues came to another shore, where he anchored and spent several days. … This was the second principal landing-place of Verrazano. If we reckon 50 leagues from Cape Hatteras, it would fall somewhere upon the east coast of Delaware, in latitude 38° North, where, by some authors, it is thought to have been. But if, as appears most likely, Verrazano reckoned his distance here, as he did in other cases, from his last anchoring, and not from Cape Hatteras, we must look for his second landing somewhere south of the entrance to Chesapeake Bay, and near the entrance to Albemarle Sound. And this better agrees with the 'sail of 100 leagues' which Verrazano says he made from his second to his third landing-place, in New York Bay. … He found at this third landing station an excellent berth, where he came to anchor, well-protected from the winds, … and from which he ascended the river in his boat into the interior. He found the shores very thickly settled, and as he passed up half a league further, he discovered a most beautiful lake … of three leagues in circumference. Here, more than 30 canoes came to him with a multitude of people, who seemed very friendly. … This description contains several accounts which make it still more clear that the Bay of New York was the scene of these occurrences."—Verrazano's anchorage having been at Gravesend Bay, the river which he entered being the Narrows, and the lake he found being the Inner Harbor. From New York Bay Verrazano sailed eastward, along the southern shore of Long Island, and following the New England coast, touching at or describing points which are identified with Narragansett Bay and Newport, Block Island or Martha's Vineyard, and Portsmouth. His coasting voyage was pursued as far as 50° North, from which point he sailed homeward. "He entered the port of Dieppe early in July, 1524. His whole exploring expedition, from Madeira and back, had accordingly lasted but five and a half months."

      J. G. Kohl,
      History of the Discovery of Maine
      (Maine Historical Society Collection, 2d Series, volume 1),
      chapter 8.


G. Dexter, Cortereal, Verrazano, &c. (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 4, chapter 1).

Relation of Verrazano (New York Historical Society Collection, volume 1, and N. S., volume 1).

      J. C. Brevoort,
      Verrazano the Navigator.

AMERICA: A. D. 1524-1528.
   The Explorations of Pizarro and Discovery of Peru.

"The South Sea having been discovered, and the inhabitants of Tierra Firme having been conquered and pacified, the Governor Pedrarias de Avila founded and settled the cities of Panama and of Nata, and the town of Nombre de Dios. At this time the Captain Francisco Pizarro, son of the Captain Gonzalo Pizarro, a knight of the city of Truxillo, was living in the city of Panama; possessing his house, his farm and his Indians, as one of the principal people of the land, which indeed he always was, having distinguished himself in the conquest and settling, and in the service of his Majesty. Being at rest and in repose, but full of zeal to continue his labours and to perform other more distinguished services for the royal crown, he sought permission from Pedrarias to discover that coast of the South Sea to the eastward. He spent a large part of his fortune on a good ship which he built, and on necessary supplies for the voyage, and he set out from the city of Panama on the 14th day of the month of November, in the year 1524. He had 112 Spaniards in his company, besides some Indian servants. He commenced a voyage in which they suffered many hardships, the season being winter and unpropitious." From this unsuccessful voyage, during which many of his men died of hunger and disease, and in the course of which he found no country that tempted his cupidity or his ambition, Pizarro returned after some months to "the land of Panama, landing at an Indian village near the island of Pearls, called Chuchama. Thence he sent the ship to Panama, for she had become unseaworthy by reason of the teredo; and all that had befallen was reported to Pedrarias, while the Captain remained behind to refresh himself and his companions. When the ship arrived at Panama it was found that, a few days before, the Captain Diego de Almagro had sailed in search of the Captain Pizarro, his companion, with another ship and 70 men." Almagro and his party followed the coast until they came to a great river, which they called San Juan [a few miles north of the port of Buenaventura, in New Granada]. … They there found signs of gold, but there being no traces of the Captain Pizarro, the Captain Almagro returned to Chuchama, where he found his comrade. They agreed that the Captain Almagro should go to Panama, repair the ships, collect more men to continue the enterprise, and defray the expenses, which amounted to more than 10,000 castellanos. At Panama much obstruction was caused by Pedrarias and others, who said that the voyage should not be persisted in, and that his Majesty would not be served by it. The Captain Almagro, with the authority given him by his comrade, was very constant in prosecuting the work he had commenced, and … Pedrarias was forced to allow him to engage men. {65} He set out from Panama with 110 men; and went to the place where Pizarro waited with another 50 of the first 110 who sailed with him, and of the 70 who accompanied Almagro when he went in search. The other 130 were dead. The two captains, in their two ships, sailed with 160 men, and coasted along the land. When they thought they saw signs of habitations, they went on shore in three canoes they had with them, rowed by 60 men, and so they sought for provisions. They continued to sail in this way for three years, suffering great hardships from hunger and cold. The greater part of the crews died of hunger, insomuch that there were not 50 surviving, and during all those three years they discovered no good land. All was swamp and inundated country, without inhabitants. The good country they discovered was as far as the river San Juan, where the Captain Pizarro remained with the few survivors, sending a captain with the smaller ship to discover some good land further along the coast. He sent the other ship, with the Captain Diego de Almagro to Panama to get more men. At the end of 70 days, the exploring ship came back with good reports, and with specimens of gold, silver and cloths, found in a country further south. "As soon as the Captain Almagro arrived from Panama with a ship laden with men and horses, the two ships, with their commanders and all their people, set out from the river San Juan, to go to that newly-discovered land. But the navigation was difficult; they were detained so long that the provisions were exhausted, and the people were obliged to go on shore in search of supplies. The ships reached the bay of San Mateo, and some villages to which the Spaniards gave the name of Santiago. Next they came to the villages of Tacamez [Atacames, on the coast of modern Ecuador], on the sea coast further on. These villages were seen by the Christians to be large and well peopled: and when 90 Spaniards had advanced a league beyond the villages of Tacamez, more than 10,000 Indian warriors encountered them; but seeing that the Christians intended no evil, and did not wish to take their goods, but rather to treat them peacefully, with much love, the Indians desisted from war. In this land there were abundant supplies, and the people led well-ordered lives, the villages having their streets and squares. One village had more than 3,000 houses, and others were smaller. It seemed to the captains and to the other Spaniards that nothing could be done in that land by reason of the smallness of their numbers, which rendered them unable to cope with the Indians. So they agreed to load the ships with the supplies to be found in the villages, and to return to an island called Gallo, where they would be safe until the ships arrived at Panama with the news of what had been discovered, and to apply to the Governor for more men, in order that the Captains might be able to continue their undertaking, and conquer the land. Captain Almagro went in the ships. Many persons had written to the Governor entreating him to order the crews to return to Panama, saying that it was impossible to endure more hardships than they had suffered during the last three years. The Governor ordered that all those who wished to go to Panama might do so, while those who desired to continue the discoveries were at liberty to remain. Sixteen men stayed with Pizarro, and all the rest went back in the ships to Panama. The Captain Pizarro was on that island for five months, when one of the ships returned, in which he continued the discoveries for a hundred leagues further down the coast. They found many villages and great riches; and they brought away more specimens of gold, silver, and cloths than had been found before, which were presented by the natives. The Captain returned because the time granted by the governor had expired, and the last day of the period had been reached when he entered the port of Panama. The two Captains were so ruined that they could no longer prosecute their undertaking. … The Captain Francisco Pizarro was only able to borrow a little more than 1,000 castellanos among his friends, with which sum he went to Castile, and gave an account to his Majesty of the great and signal services he had performed."

F. de Xeres (Sec. of Pizarro), Account of the Province of Cuzco; translated and edited by C. R. Markham (Hakluyt Society, 1872).

      ALSO IN:
      W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Conquest of Peru,
      book 2, chapters 2-4 (volume 1).

AMERICA: A. D. 1525.
   The Voyage of Gomez.


AMERICA: A. D. 1526-1531.
   Voyage of Sebastian Cabot and attempted colonization of La Plata.

See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

AMERICA: A. D. 1528-1542.
   The Florida Expeditions of Narvaez and Hernando de Soto.
   Discovery of the Mississippi.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

AMERICA: A. D. 1531-1533.
   Pizarro's Conquest of Peru.

See PERU: A. D. 1528-1531, and 1531-1533.

AMERICA: A. D. 1533.
   Spanish Conquest of the Kingdom of Quito.


AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.
   Exploration of the St. Lawrence to Montreal by Jacques Cartier.

"At last, ten years after [the voyages of Verrazano], Philip Chabot, Admiral of France, induced the king [Francis I.] to resume the project of founding a French colony in the New World whence the Spaniards daily drew such great wealth; and he presented to him a Captain of St. Malo, by name Jacques Cartier, whose merit he knew, and whom that prince accepted. Cartier having received his instructions, left St. Malo the 2d of April, 1534, with two ships of 60 tons and 122 men. He steered west, inclining slightly north, and had such fair winds that, on the 10th of May, he made Cape Bonavista, in Newfoundland, at 46° north. Cartier found the land there still covered with snow, and the shore fringed with ice, so that he could not or dared not stop; He ran down six degrees south-southeast, and entered a port to which he gave the name of St. Catharine. Thence he turned back north. … After making almost the circuit of Newfoundland, though without being able to satisfy himself that it was an island, he took a southerly course, crossed the gulf, approached the continent, and entered a very deep bay, where he suffered greatly from heat, whence he called it Chaleurs Bay. He was charmed with the beauty of the country, and well pleased with the Indians that he met and with whom he exchanged some goods for furs. … On leaving this bay, Cartier visited a good part of the coasts around the gulf, and took possession of the country in the name of the most Christian king, as Verazani had done in all the places where he landed. {66} He set sail again on the 15th of August to return to France, and reached St. Malo safely on the 5th of September. … On the report which he made of his voyage, the court concluded that it would be useful to France to have a settlement in that part of America; but no one took this affair more to heart than the Vice-Admiral Charles de Mony, Sieur de la Mailleraye. This noble obtained a new commission for Cartier, more ample than the first, and gave him three ships well equipped. This fleet was ready about the middle of May, and Cartier … embarked on Wednesday the 19th." His three vessels were separated by violent storms, but found one another, near the close of July, in the gulf which was their appointed place of rendezvous. "On the 1st of August bad weather drove him to take refuge in the port of St. Nicholas, at the mouth of the river on the north. Here Cartier planted a cross, with the arms of France, and remained until the 7th. This port is almost the only spot in Canada that has kept the name given by Cartier. … On the 10th the three vessels re-entered the gulf, and in honor of the saint whose feast is celebrated on that day, Cartier gave the gulf the name of St. Lawrence; or rather he gave it to a bay lying between Anticosti Island and the north shore, whence it extended to the whole gulf of which this bay is part; and because the river, before that called River of Canada, empties into the same gulf, it insensibly acquired the name of St. Lawrence, which it still bears. … The three vessels … ascended the river, and on the 1st of September they entered the river Saguenay. Cartier merely reconnoitered the mouth of this river, and … hastened to seek a port where his vessels might winter in safety. Eight leagues above Isle aux Coudres he found another much larger and handsomer island, all covered with trees and vines. He called it Bacchus Island, but the name has been changed to Isle d'Orleans. The author of the relation to this voyage, printed under the name of Cartier, pretends that only here the country begins to be called Canada. But he is surely mistaken; for it is certain that from the earliest times the Indians gave this name to the whole country along the river on both sides, from its mouth to the Saguenay. From Bacchus Island, Cartier proceeded to a little river which is ten leagues off, and comes from the north; he called it Rivière de Ste Croix, because he entered it on the 14th of September (Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross); but it is now commonly called Rivière de Jacques Cartier. The day after his arrival he received a visit from an Indian chief named Donnacona, whom the author of the relation of that voyage styles Lord of Canada. Cartier treated with this chief by means of two Indians whom he had taken to France the year before, and who knew a little French. They informed Donnacona that the strangers wished to go to Hochelaga, which seemed to trouble him. Hochelaga was a pretty large town, situated on an island now known under the name of Island of Montreal. Cartier had heard much of it, and was loth to return to France without seeing it. The reason why this voyage troubled Donnacona was that the people of Hochelaga were of a different nation from his, and that he wished to profit exclusively by the advantages which he hoped to derive from the stay of the French in his country." Proceeding with one vessel to Lake St. Pierre, and thence in two boats, Cartier reached Hochelaga Oct. 2. "The shape of the town was round, and three rows of palisades inclosed in it about 50 tunnel shaped cabins, each over 50 paces long and 14 or 15 wide. It was entered by a single gate, above which, as well as along the first palisade, ran a kind of gallery, reached by ladders, and well provided with pieces of rock and pebbles for the defence of the place. The inhabitants of the town spoke the Huron language. They received the French very well. … Cartier visited the mountain at the foot of which the town lay, and gave it the name of Mont Royal, which has become that of the whole Island [Montreal]. From it he discovered a great extent of country, the sight of which charmed him. … He left Hochelaga on the 5th of October, and on the 11th arrived at Sainte Croix." Wintering at this place, where his crews suffered terribly from the cold and from scurvy, he returned to France the following spring. "Some authors … pretend that Cartier, disgusted with Canada, dissuaded the king, his master, from further thoughts of it; and Champlain seems to have been of that opinion. But this does not agree with what Cartier himself says in his memoirs. … Cartier in vain extolled the country which he had discovered. His small returns, and the wretched condition to which his men had been reduced by cold and scurvy, persuaded most that it would never be of any use to France. Great stress was laid on the fact that he nowhere saw any appearance of mines; and then, even more than now, a strange land which produced neither gold nor silver was reckoned as nothing."

Father Charlevoix, History of New France, (translated by J. G. Shea), book 1.

ALSO IN: R. Kerr, General Collection of Voyages, part 2, book 2, chapter 12 (volume 6).

F. X. Garneau, History of Canada, volume 1, chapter 2.

AMERICA: A. D. 1535-1540.
   Introduction of Printing in Mexico.

See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1535-1709.

AMERICA: A. D. 1535-1550.
   Spanish Conquests in Chile.

See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

AMERICA: A. D. 1536-1538.
   Spanish Conquests of New Granada.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.

AMERICA: A. D. 1541-1603.
   Jacques Cartier's last Voyage.
   Abortive attempts at French Colonization in Canada.

   "Jean François de la Roque, lord of Roberval, a gentleman of
   Picardy, was the most earnest and energetic of those who
   desired to colonize the lands discovered by Jacques Cartier.
   … The title and authority of lieutenant-general was
   conferred upon him; his rule to extend over Canada. Hochelaga,
   Saguenay, Newfoundland, Belle Isle, Carpon, Labrador, La Grand
   Baye, and Baccalaos, with the delegated rights and powers of
   the Crown. This patent was dated the 15th of January, 1540.
   Jacques Cartier was named second in command. … Jacques
   Cartier sailed on the 23d of May, 1541, having provisioned his
   fleet for two years." He remained on the St. Lawrence until
   the following June, seeking vainly for the fabled wealth of
   the land of Saguenay, finding the Indians strongly inclined to
   a treacherous hostility, and suffering severe hardships during
   the winter. Entirely discouraged and disgusted, he abandoned
   his undertaking early in the summer of 1542, and sailed for home.
   In the road of St. John's, Newfoundland, Cartier met his tardy
   chief, Roberval, just coming to join him; but no persuasion
   could induce the disappointed explorer to turn back. "To avoid
   the chance of an open rupture with Roberval, the lieutenant
   silently weighed anchor during the night, and made all sail
   for France. This inglorious withdrawal from the enterprise
   paralyzed Roberval's power, and deferred the permanent
   settlement of Canada for generations then unborn. Jacques
   Cartier died soon after his return to Europe." Roberval
   proceeded to Canada, built a fort at Ste Croix, four leagues
   west of Orleans, sent back two of his three ships to France,
   and remained through the winter with his colony, having a
   troubled time. There is no certain account of the ending of
   the enterprise, but it ended in failure. For half a century
   afterwards there was little attempt made by the French to
   colonize any part of New France, though the French fisheries
   on the Newfoundland Bank and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence were
   steadily growing in activity and importance. "When, after
   fifty years of civil strife, the strong and wise sway of Henry
   IV. restored rest to troubled France, the spirit of discovery
   again arose. The Marquis de In Roche, a Breton gentleman,
   obtained from the king, in 1598, a patent granting the same
   powers that Roberval had possessed." But La Roche's
   undertaking proved more disastrous than Roberval's had been.
   Yet, there had been enough of successful fur-trading opened to
   stimulate enterprise, despite these misfortunes. "Private
   adventurers, unprotected by any special privilege, began to
   barter for the rich peltries of the Canadian hunters. A
   wealthy merchant of St. Malo, named Pontgravé, was the boldest
   and most successful of these traders; he made several voyages
   to Tadoussac, at the mouth of the Saguenay, bringing back each
   time a rich cargo of rare and valuable furs." In 1600,
   Pontgravé effected a partnership with one Chauvin, a naval
   captain, who obtained a patent from the king giving him a
   monopoly of the trade; but Chauvin died in 1602 without having
   succeeded in establishing even a trading post at Tadoussac. De
   Chatte, or De Chastes, governor of Dieppe, succeeded to the
   privileges of Chauvin, and founded a company of merchants at
   Rouen [1603] to undertake the development of the resources of
   Canada. It was under the auspices of this company that Samuel
   Champlain, the founder of New France, came upon the scene.

      E. Warburton,
      The Conquest of Canada,
      volume 1, chapter 2-3.

      ALSO IN:
      F. Parkman,
      Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
      chapter 1-2.

AMERICA: A. D. 1562-1567.
   The slave trading Voyages of John Hawkins.
   Beginnings of English Enterprise in the New World.

"The history of English America begins with the three slave-trading voyages of John Hawkins, made in the years 1562, 1564, and 1567. Nothing that Englishmen had done in connection with America, previously to those voyages, had any result worth recording. England had known the New World nearly seventy years, for John Cabot reached it shortly after its discovery by Columbus; and, as the tidings of the discovery spread, many English adventurers had crossed the Atlantic to the American coast. But as years passed, and the excitement of novelty subsided, the English voyages to America had become fewer and fewer, and at length ceased altogether. It is easy to account for this. There was no opening for conquest or plunder, for the Tudors were at peace with the Spanish sovereigns: and there could be no territorial occupation, for the Papal title of Spain and Portugal to the whole of the new continent could not be disputed by Catholic England. No trade worth having existed with the natives: and Spain and Portugal kept the trade with their own settlers in their own hands. … As the plantations in America grew and multiplied, the demand for negroes rapidly increased. The Spaniards had no African settlements, but the Portuguese had many, and, with the aid of French and English adventurers, they procured from these settlements slaves enough to supply both themselves and the Spaniards. But the Brazilian plantations grew so fast, about the middle of the century, that they absorbed the entire supply, and the Spanish colonists knew not where to look for negroes. This penury of slaves in the Spanish Indies became known to the English and French captains who frequented the Guinea coast; and John Hawkins, who had been engaged from boyhood in the trade with Spain and the Canaries, resolved in 1562 to take a cargo of negro slaves to Hispaniola. The little squadron with which he executed this project was the first English squadron which navigated the West Indian seas. This voyage opened those seas to the English. England had not yet broken with Spain, and the law excluding English vessels from trading with the Spanish colonists was not strictly enforced. The trade was profitable, and Hawkins found no difficulty in disposing of his cargo to great advantage. A meagre note … from the pen of Hakluyt contains all that is known of the first American voyage of Hawkins. In its details it must have closely resembled the second voyage. In the first voyage, however, Hawkins had no occasion to carry his wares further than three ports on the northern side of Hispaniola. These ports, far away from San Domingo, the capital, were already well known to the French smugglers. He did not venture into the Caribbean Sea; and having loaded his ships with their return cargo, he made the best of his way back. In his second voyage … he entered the Caribbean Sea, still keeping, however, at a safe distance from San Domingo, and sold his slaves on the mainland. This voyage was on a much larger scale. … Having sold his slaves in the continental ports [South American], and loaded his vessels with hides and other goods bought with the produce, Hawkins determined to strike out a new path and sail home with the Gulf-stream, which would carry him northwards past the shores of Florida. Sparke's narrative … proves that at every point in these expeditions the Englishman was following in the track of the French. He had French pilots and seamen on board, and there is little doubt that one at least of these had already been with Laudonnière in Florida. The French seamen guided him to Laudonnière's settlement, where his arrival was most opportune. They then pointed him the way by the coast of North America, then universally know in the mass as New France, to Newfoundland, and thence, with the prevailing westerly winds, to Europe. {68} This was the pioneer voyage made by Englishmen along coasts afterwards famous in history through English colonization. … The extremely interesting narrative … given … from the pen of John Sparke, one of Hawkins' gentlemen companions … contains the first information concerning America and its natives which was published in England by an English eye-witness." Hawkins planned a third voyage in 1566, but the remonstrances of the Spanish king caused him to be stopped by the English court. He sent out his ships, however, and they came home in due time richly freighted,—from what source is not known. "In another year's time the aspect of things had changed." England was venturing into war with Spain, "and Hawkins was now able to execute his plans without restraint, He founded a permanent fortified factory on the Guinea coast, where negroes might be collected all the year round. Thence he sailed for the West Indies a third time. Young Francis Drake sailed with him in command of the 'Judith,' a small vessel of fifty tons." The voyage had a prosperous beginning and a disastrous ending. After disposing of most of their slaves, they were driven by storms to take refuge in the Mexican port of Vera Cruz, and there they were attacked by a Spanish fleet. Drake in the "Judith" and Hawkins in another small vessel escaped. But the latter was overcrowded with men and obliged to put half of them ashore on the Mexican coast. The majority of those left on board, as well as a majority of Drake's crew, died on the voyage home, and it was a miserable remnant that landed in England, in January, 1569.

E. J. Payne, Voyages of the Elizabethan Seamen to America, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: The Hawkins Voyages; edited by C. R. Markham (Hakluyt Society, Number 57).

      R. Southey,
      Lives of the British Admirals,
      volume 3.

AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.
   The Piratical Adventures of Drake and his Encompassing of the

"Francis Drake, the first of the English Buccaneers, was one of the twelve children of Edward Drake of Tavistock, in Devonshire, a staunch Protestant, who had fled his native place to avoid persecution, and had then become a ship's chaplain. Drake, like Columbus, had been a seaman by profession from boyhood; and … had served as a young man, in command of the Judith, under Hawkins, … Hawkins had confined himself to smuggling: Drake advanced from this to piracy. This practice was authorized by law in the middle ages for the purpose of recovering debts or damages from the subjects of another nation. The English, especially those of the west country, were the most formidable pirates in the world; and the whole nation was by this time roused against Spain, in consequence of the ruthless war waged against Protestantism in the Netherlands by Philip II. Drake had accounts of his own to settle with the Spaniards. Though Elizabeth had not declared for the revolted States, and pursued a shifting policy, her interests and theirs were identical; and it was with a view of cutting off those supplies of gold and silver from America which enabled Philip to bribe politicians and pay soldiers, in pursuit of his policy of aggression, that the famous voyage was authorized by English statesmen. Drake had recently made more than one successful voyage of plunder to the American coast." In July, 1572, he surprised the Spanish town of Nombre de Dios, which was the shipping port on the northern side of the Isthmus for the treasures of Peru. His men made their way into the royal treasure-house, where they laid hands on a heap of bar-silver, 70 feet long, 10 wide, and 10 high; but Drake himself had received a wound which compelled the pirates to retreat with no very large part of the splendid booty. In the winter of 1573, with the help of the runaway slaves on the Isthmus, known as Cimarrones, he crossed the Isthmus, looked on the Pacific ocean, approached within sight of the city of Panama, and waylaid a transportation party conveying gold to Nombre de Dios; but was disappointed of his prey by the excited conduct of some of his men. When he saw, on this occasion, the great ocean beyond the Isthmus, "Drake then and there resolved to be the pioneer of England in the Pacific; and on this resolution he solemnly besought the blessing of God. Nearly four years elapsed before it was executed; for it was not until November, 1577, that Drake embarked on his famous voyage, in the course of which he proposed to plunder Peru itself. The Peruvian ports were unfortified. The Spaniards knew them to be by nature absolutely secured from attack on the north; and they never dreamed that the English pirates would be daring enough to pass the terrible straits of Magellan and attack them from the south. Such was the plan of Drake; and it was executed with complete success." He sailed from Plymouth, December 13, 1577, with a fleet of four vessels, and a pinnace, but lost one of the ships after he had entered the Pacific, in a storm which drove him southward, and which made him the discoverer of Cape Horn. Another of his ships, separated from the squadron, returned home, and a third, while attempting to do the same, was lost in the river Plate. Drake, in his own vessel, the Golden Hind, proceeded to the Peruvian coasts, where he cruised until he had taken and plundered a score of Spanish ships. "Laden with a rich booty of Peruvian treasure he deemed it unsafe to return by the way that he came. He therefore resolved to strike across the Pacific, and for this purpose made the latitude in which this voyage was usually performed by the Spanish government vessels which sailed annually from Acapulco to the Philippines. Drake thus reached the coast of California, where the Indians, delighted beyond measure by presents of clothing and trinkets, invited him to remain and rule over them. Drake took possession of the country in the name of the Queen, and refitted his vessel in preparation for the unknown perils of the Pacific. The place where He landed must have been either the great bay of San Francisco [per contra., see CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847] or the small bay of Bodega, which lies a few leagues further north. The great seaman had already coasted five degrees more to the northward before finding a suitable harbour. He believed himself to be the first European who had coasted these shores; but it is now well known that Spanish explorers had preceded him. Drake's circumnavigation of the globe was thus no deliberate feat of seamanship, but the necessary result of circumstances. The voyage made in more than one way a great epoch in English nautical history." Drake reached Plymouth on his return Sept. 26, 1580.

E. J. Payne, Voyages of the Elizabethan Seamen, pages 141-143.

      ALSO IN
      F. Fletcher,
      The World Encompassed by Sir F. Drake
      (Hakluyt Society, 1854)

      J. Barrow,
      Life of Drake.

R. Southey, Lives of British Admirals, volume 3.


AMERICA: A. D. 1580.
   The final founding of the City of Buenos Ayres.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC; A. D: 1580-1777.

AMERICA: A. D. 1583.
   The Expedition of Sir Humphrey Gilbert.
   Formal possession taken of Newfoundland.

In 1578, Sir Humphrey Gilbert, an English gentleman, of Devonshire, whose younger half-brother was the more famous Sir Walter Raleigh, obtained from Queen Elizabeth a charter empowering him, for the next six years, to discover "such remote heathen and barbarous lands, not actually possessed by any Christian prince or people," as he might be shrewd or fortunate enough to find, and to occupy the same as their proprietor. Gilbert's first expedition was attempted the next year, with Sir Walter Raleigh associated in it; but misfortunes drove back the adventurers to port, and Spanish intrigue prevented their sailing again. "In June, 1583, Gilbert sailed from Cawsund Bay with five vessels, with the general intention of discovering and colonizing the northern parts of America. It was the first colonizing expedition which left the shores of Great Britain; and the narrative of the expedition by Hayes, who commanded one of Gilbert's vessels, forms the first page in the history of English colonization. Gilbert did no more than go through the empty form of taking possession of the island of Newfoundland, to which the English name formerly applied to the continent in general … was now restricted. … Gilbert dallied here too long. When he set sail to cross the Gulf of St. Lawrence and take possession of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia the season was too far advanced; one of his largest ships went down with all on board, including the Hungarian scholar Parmenius, who had come out as the historian of the expedition; the stores were exhausted and the crews dispirited; and Gilbert resolved on sailing home, intending to return and prosecute his discoveries the next spring. On the home voyage the little vessel in which he was sailing foundered; and the pioneer of English colonization found a watery grave. … Gilbert was a man of courage, piety, and learning. He was, however, an indifferent seaman, and quite incompetent for the task of colonization to which he had set his hand. The misfortunes of his expedition induced Amadas and Barlow, who followed in his steps, to abandon the northward voyage and sail to the shores intended to be occupied by the easier but more circuitous route of the Canaries and the West Indies."

E. J. Payne, Voyages of the Elizabethan Seamen, pages 173-174.

"On Monday, the 9th of September, in the afternoon, the frigate [the' Squirrel'] was near cast away, oppressed by waves, yet at that time recovered; and giving forth signs of joy, the general, sitting abaft with a book in his hand, cried out to us in the 'Hind' (so oft as we did approach within hearing), 'We are as near to heaven by sea as by land,' reiterating the same speech, well beseeming a soldier resolute in Jesus Christ, as I can testify he was. On the same Monday night, about twelve o'clock, or not long after, the frigate being ahead of us in the 'Golden Hind,' suddenly her lights were out, whereof as it were in a moment we lost the sight, and withal our watch cried the General was cast away, which was too true; for in that moment the frigate was devoured and swallowed up by the sea. Yet still we looked out all that night and ever after, until we arrived upon the coast of England. … In great torment of weather and peril of drowning it pleased God to send safe home the 'Golden Hind,' which arrived in Falmouth on the 22d of September, being Sunday."

      E. Hayes,
      A Report of the Voyage by Sir Humphrey Gilbert
      (reprinted in Payne's Voyages).

      ALSO IN
      E. Edwards,
      Life of Raleigh,
      volume 1, chapter 5.

      R. Hakluyt,
      Principal Navigations;
      edited by E. Goldsmid,
      volume 12.

AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586.
   Raleigh's First Colonizing attempts and failures.

"The task in which Gilbert had failed was to be undertaken by one better qualified to carry it out. If any Englishman in that age seemed to be marked out as the founder of a colonial empire, it was Raleigh. Like Gilbert, he had studied books; like Drake he could rule men. … The associations of his youth, and the training of his early manhood, fitted him to sympathize with the aims of his half-brother Gilbert, and there is little reason to doubt that Raleigh had a share in his undertaking and his failure. In 1584 he obtained a patent precisely similar to Gilbert's. His first step showed the thoughtful and well-planned system on which he began his task. Two ships were sent out, not with any idea of settlement, but to examine and report upon the country. Their commanders were Arthur Barlow and Philip Amidas. To the former we owe the extant record of the voyage: the name of the latter would suggest that he was a foreigner. Whether by chance or design, they took a more southerly course than any of their predecessors. On the 2d of July the presence of shallow water, and a smell of sweet flowers, warned them that land was near. The promise thus given was amply fulfilled upon their approach. The sight before them was far different from that which had met the eyes of Hore and Gilbert. Instead of the bleak coast of Newfoundland, Barlow and Amidas looked upon a scene which might recall the softness of the Mediterranean. … Coasting along for about 120 miles, the voyagers reached an inlet and with some difficulty entered. They then solemnly took possession of the land in the Queen's name, and then delivered it over to Raleigh according to his patent. They soon discovered that the land upon which they had touched was an island about 20 miles long, and not above six broad, named, as they afterwards learnt, Roanoke. Beyond, separating them from the mainland, lay an enclosed sea, studded with more than a hundred fertile and well-wooded islets." The Indians proved friendly, and were described by Barlow as being "most gentle, loving and faithful, void of all guile and treason, and such as live after the manner of the golden age." "The report which the voyagers took home spoke as favourably of the land itself as of its inhabitants. … With them they brought two of the savages, named Wanchese and Manteo. A probable tradition tells us that the queen herself named the country Virginia, and that Raleigh's knighthood was the reward and acknowledgment of his success. {70} On the strength of this report Raleigh at once made preparations for a settlement. A fleet of seven ships was provided for the conveyance of 108 settlers. The fleet was under the command of Sir Richard Grenvillle, who was to establish the settlement and leave it under the charge of Ralph Lane. … On the 9th of April [1585] the emigrants set sail." For some reason not well explained, the fleet made a circuit to the West Indies, and loitered for five weeks at the island of St. John's and at Hispaniola, reaching Virginia in the last days of June. Quarrels between the two commanders, Grenville and Lane, had already begun, and both seemed equally ready to provoke the enmity of the natives. In August, after exploring some sixty miles of the coast, Grenville returned to England, promising to come back the next spring with new colonists and stores. The settlement, thus left to the care of Lane, was established "at the north-east corner of the island of Roanoke, whence the settlers could command the strait. There, even now, choked by vines and underwood, and here and there broken by the crumbling remains of an earthen bastion, may be traced the outlines of the ditch which enclosed the camp, some forty yards square, the home of the first English settlers in the New World. Of the doings of the settlers during the winter nothing is recorded, but by the next spring their prospects looked gloomy. The Indians were no longer friends. … The settlers, unable to make fishing weirs, and without seed corn, were entirely dependent on the Indians for their daily food. Under these circumstances, one would have supposed that Lane would have best employed himself in guarding the settlement and improving its condition. He, however, thought otherwise, and applied himself to the task of exploring the neighbouring territory." But a wide combination of hostile Indian tribes had been formed against the English, and their situation became from day to day more imperilled. At the beginning of June, 1586, Lane fought a bold battle with the savages and routed them; but no sign of Grenville appeared and the prospect looked hopeless. Just at this juncture, a great English fleet, sailing homewards from a piratical expedition to the Spanish Main, under the famous Captain Drake, came to anchor at Roanoke and offered succor to the disheartened colonists. With one voice they petitioned to be taken to England, and Drake received the whole party on board his ships. "The help of which the colonists had despaired was in reality close at hand. Scarcely had Drake's fleet left the coast when a ship well furnished by Raleigh with needful supplies, reached Virginia, and after searching for the departed settlers returned to England. About a fortnight later Grenville himself arrived with three ships. He spent some time in the country exploring, searching for the settlers, and at last, unwilling to lose possession of the country, landed fifteen men at Roanoke well supplied for two years, and then set sail for England, plundering the Azores, and doing much damage to the Spaniards."

J. A. Doyle, The English in America: Virginia, &c., chapter 4.

"It seems to be generally admitted that, when Lane and his company went back to England, they carried with them tobacco as one of the products of the country, which they presented to Raleigh, as the planter of the colony, and by him it was brought into use in England, and gradually in other European countries. The authorities are not entirely agreed upon this point. Josselyn says: 'Tobacco first brought into England by Sir John Hawkins, but first brought into use by Sir Walter Rawleigh many years after.' Again he says: 'Now (say some) Tobacco was first brought into England by Mr. Ralph Lane, out of Virginia. Others will have Tobacco to be first brought into England from Peru, by Sir Francis Drake's Mariners.' Camden fixes its introduction into England by Ralph Lane and the men brought back with him in the ships of Drake. He says: 'And these men which were brought back were the first that I know of, which brought into England that Indian plant which they call Tobacco and Nicotia, and use it against crudities, being taught it by the Indians.' Certainly from that time it began to be in great request, and to be sold at a high rate. … Among the 108 men left in the colony with Ralph Lane in 1585 was Mr. Thomas Hariot, a man of a strongly mathematical and scientific turn, whose services in this connection were greatly valued. He remained there an entire year, and went back to England in 1586. He wrote out a full account of his observations in the New World."

      L. N. Tarbox,
      Sir Walter Raleigh and his Colony
      (Prince Society 1884).

      ALSO IN
      T. Hariot,
      Brief and true Report
      (Reprinted in above-named Prince Society Publication).

      F. L. Hawks,
      History of North Carolina, volume 1
      (containing reprints of Lane's Account, Hariot's Report, &c.)

      Original Documents edited by E. E. Hale
      (Archæologia Americana,
      volume 4).

AMERICA: A. D. 1587-1590.
   The Lost Colony of Roanoke.
   End of the Virginia Undertakings of Sir Walter Raleigh.

"Raleigh, undismayed by losses, determined to plant an agricultural state; to send emigrants with their wives and families, who should make their homes in the New World; and, that life and property might be secured, in January, 1587, he granted a charter for the settlement, and a municipal government for the city of 'Raleigh.' John White was appointed its governor; and to him, with eleven assistants, the administration of the colony was intrusted. Transport ships were prepared at the expense of the proprietary; 'Queen Elizabeth, the godmother of Virginia,' declined contributing 'to its education.' Embarking in April, in July they arrived on the coast of North Carolina; they were saved from the dangers of Cape Fear; and, passing Cape Hatteras, they hastened to the isle of Roanoke, to search for the handful of men whom Grenville had left there as a garrison. They found the tenements deserted and overgrown with weeds; human bones lay scattered on the field where wild deer were reposing. The fort was in ruins. No vestige of surviving life appeared. The instructions of Raleigh had designated the place for the new settlement on the bay of Chesapeake. But Fernando, the naval officer, eager to renew a profitable traffic in the West Indies, refused his assistance in exploring the coast, and White was compelled to remain on Roanoke. … It was there that in July the foundations of the city of Raleigh were laid. But the colony was doomed to disaster from the beginning, being quickly involved in warfare with the surrounding natives. "With the returning ship White embarked for England, under the excuse of interceding for re-enforcements and supplies. {71} Yet, on the 18th of August, nine days previous to his departure, his daughter Eleanor Dare, the wife of one of the assistants, gave birth to a female child, the first offspring of English parents on the soil of the United States. The infant was named from the place of its birth. The colony, now composed of 89 men, 17 women, and two children, whose names are all preserved, might reasonably hope for the speedy return of the governor, as he left with them his daughter and his grandchild, Virginia Dare. The farther history of this plantation is involved in gloomy uncertainty. The inhabitants of 'the city of Raleigh,' the emigrants from England and the first-born of America, awaited death in the land of their adoption. For, when White reached England, he found its attention absorbed by the threats of an invasion from Spain. … Yet Raleigh, whose patriotism did not diminish his generosity, found means, in April 1588, to despatch White with supplies in two vessels. But the company, desiring a gainful voyage rather than a safe one, ran in chase of prizes, till one of them fell in with men of war from Rochelle, and, after a bloody fight, was boarded and rifled. Both ships were compelled to return to England. The delay was fatal: the English kingdom and the Protestant reformation were in danger; nor could the poor colonists of Roanoke be again remembered till after the discomfiture of the Invincible Armada. Even then Sir Walter Raleigh, who had already incurred a fruitless expense of £40,000, found his impaired fortune insufficient for further attempts at colonizing Virginia. He therefore used the privilege of his patent to endow a company of merchants and adventurers with large concessions. Among the men who thus obtained an assignment of the proprietary's rights in Virginia is found the name of Richard Hakluyt; it connects the first efforts of England in North Carolina with the final colonization of Virginia. The colonists at Roanoke had emigrated with a charter; the instrument of March, 1589, was not an assignment of Raleigh's patent, but the extension of a grant, already held under its sanction by increasing the number to whom the rights of that charter belonged. More than another year elapsed before White could return to search for his colony and his daughter; and then the island of Roanoke was a desert. An inscription on the bark of a tree pointed to Croatan; but the season of the year and the dangers from storms were pleaded as an excuse for an immediate return. The conjecture has been hazarded that the deserted colony, neglected by their own countrymen, were hospitably adopted into the tribe [the Croatans] of Hatteras Indians. Raleigh long cherished the hope of discovering some vestiges of their existence, and sent at his own charge, and, it is said, at five several times, to search for his liege men. But imagination received no help in its attempts to trace the fate of the colony of Roanoke."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States, part 1, ch.5 (volume 1).

"The Croatans of to-day claim descent from the lost colony. Their habits, disposition and mental characteristics show traces both of savage and civilized ancestors. Their language is the English of 300 years ago, and their names are in many cases the same as those borne by the original colonists. No other theory of their origin has been advanced."

S. B. Weeks, The Lost Colony of Roanoke (American History Association Papers, volume 5, part 4).

"This last expedition [of White, searching for his lost colony] was not despatched by Raleigh, but by his successors in the American patent. And our history is now to take leave of that illustrious man, with whose schemes and enterprises it ceases to have any further connexion. The ardour of his mind was not exhausted, but diverted by a multiplicity of new and not less arduous undertakings. … Desirous, at the same time, that a project which he had carried so far should not be entirely abandoned, and hoping that the spirit of commerce would preserve an intercourse with Virginia that might terminate in a colonial establishment, he consented to assign his patent to Sir Thomas Smith, and a company of merchants in London, who undertook to establish and maintain a traffic between England and Virginia. … It appeared very soon that Raleigh had transferred his patent to bands very different from his own. … Satisfied with a paltry traffic carried on by a few small vessels, they made no attempt to take possession of the country: and at the period of Elizabeth's death, not a single Englishman was settled in America."

      J. Grahame,
      History of the Rise and Progress of the
      United States of North America till 1688,
      chapter 1.

      ALSO IN
      W. Stith,
      History of Virginia,
      book 1.

      F. L. Hawks,
      History of North Carolina,
      volume 1, Nos. 7-8.

AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.
   The Voyages of Gosnold, Pring, and Weymouth.
   The First Englishmen In New England.

   Bartholomew Gosnold was a West-of-England mariner who had
   served in the expeditions of Sir Walter Raleigh to the
   Virginia coast. Under his command, in the spring of 1602,
   "with the consent of Sir Walter Raleigh, and at the cost,
   among others, of Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, the
   accomplished patron of Shakespeare, a small vessel, called the
   Concord, was equipped for exploration in 'the north part of
   Virginia,' with a view to the establishment of a colony. At
   this time, in the last year of the Tudor dynasty, and nineteen
   years after the fatal termination of Gilbert's enterprise,
   there was no European Inhabitant of North America, except
   those of Spanish birth in Florida, and some twenty or thirty
   French, the miserable relics of two frustrated attempts to
   settle what they called New France. Gosnold sailed from
   Falmouth with a company of thirty-two persons, of whom eight
   were seamen, and twenty were to become planters. Taking a
   straight course across the Atlantic, instead of the indirect
   course by the Canaries and the West Indies which had been
   hitherto pursued in voyages to Virginia, at the end of seven
   weeks he saw land in Massachusetts Bay, probably near what is
   now Salem Harbor. Here a boat came off, of Basque build,
   manned by eight natives, of whom two or three were dressed in
   European clothes, indicating the presence of earlier foreign
   voyagers in these waters. Next he stood to the southward, and
   his crew took great quantities of codfish by a head land,
   called by him for that reason Cape Cod, the name which it
   retains. Gosnold, Brereton, and three others, went on shore,
   the first Englishmen who are known to have set foot upon the
   soil of Massachusetts. … Sounding his way cautiously along,
   first in a southerly, and then in a westerly direction, and
   probably passing to the south of Nantucket, Gosnold next
   landed on a small island, now called No Man's Land.
   To this he gave the name of Martha's Vineyard, since
   transferred to the larger island further north. … South of
   Buzzard's Bay, and separated on the south by the Vineyard
   Sound from Martha's Vineyard, is scattered the group denoted
   on modern maps as the Elizabeth Islands. The southwesternmost
   of these, now known by the Indian name of Cuttyhunk, was
   denominated by Gosnold Elizabeth Island. … Here Gosnold
   found a pond two miles in circumference, separated from the
   sea on one side by a beach thirty yards wide, and enclosing 'a
   rocky islet, containing near an acre of ground, full of wood and
   rubbish.' This islet was fixed upon for a settlement. In three
   weeks, while a part of the company were absent on a trading
   expedition to the mainland, the rest dug and stoned a cellar,
   prepared timber and built a house, which they fortified with
   palisades, and thatched with sedge. Proceeding to make an
   inventory of their provisions, they found that, after
   supplying the vessel, which was to take twelve men on the
   return voyage, there would be a sufficiency for only six weeks
   for the twenty men who would remain. A dispute arose upon the
   question whether the party to be left behind would receive a
   share in the proceeds of the cargo of cedar, sassafras, furs,
   and other commodities which had been collected. A small party,
   going out in quest of shell-fish, was attacked by some
   Indians. With men having already, it is likely, little stomach
   for such cheerless work, these circumstances easily led to the
   decision to abandon for the present the scheme of a
   settlement, and in the following month the adventurers sailed
   for England, and, after a voyage of five weeks, arrived at
   Exmouth. … The expedition of Gosnold was pregnant with
   consequences, though their development was slow. The accounts
   of the hitherto unknown country, which were circulated by his
   company on their return, excited an earnest interest." The
   next year (April, 1603), Martin Pring or Prynne was sent out,
   by several merchants of Bristol, with two small vessels.
   seeking cargoes of sassafras, which had acquired a high value
   on account of supposed medicinal virtues. Pring coasted from
   Maine to Martha's Vineyard, secured his desired cargoes, and
   gave a good account of the country. Two years later (March,
   1605), Lord Soathampton and Lord Wardour sent a vessel
   commanded by George Weymouth to reconnoitre the same coast
   with an eye to settlements. Weymouth ascended either the
   Kennebec or the Penobscot river some 50 or 60 miles and
   kidnapped five natives. "Except for this, and for some
   addition to the knowledge of the local geography, the voyage
   was fruitless."

      J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      volume 1, chapter 2.

      ALSO IN
      Massachusetts History Society Collection, 3d Series,
      volume 8 (1843).

      J. McKeen,
      On the Voyage of George Weymouth
      (Maine History Society Collection,
      volume 5).

AMERICA: A. D. 1603-1608.
   The First French Settlements in Acadia.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1603-1605, and 1606-1608.

AMERICA: A. D. 1607. The founding of the English Colony of Virginia, and the failure in Maine.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607, and after;
      and MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.

AMERICA: A. D. 1607-1608.
   The First Voyages of Henry Hudson.

"The first recorded voyage made by Henry Hudson was undertaken … for the Muscovy or Russia Company [of England]. Departing from Gravesend the first of May, 1607, with the intention of sailing straight across the north pole, by the north of what is now called Greenland, Hudson found that this land stretched further to the eastward than he had anticipated, and that a wall of ice, along which he coasted, extended from Greenland to Spitzbergen. Forced to relinquish the hope of finding a passage in the latter vicinity, he once more attempted the entrance of Davis' Straits by the north of Greenland. This design was also frustrated and he apparently renewed the attempt in a lower latitude and nearer Greenland on his homeward voyage. In this cruise Hudson attained a higher degree of latitude than any previous navigator. … He reached England on his return on the 15th September of that year [1607]. … On the 22d of April, 1608, Henry Hudson commenced his second recorded voyage for the Muscovy or Russia Company, with the design of 'finding a passage to the East Indies· by the north-east. … On the 3d of June, 1608, Hudson had reached the most northern point of Norway, and on the 11th was in latitude 75° 24', between Spitzbergen and Nova Zembla." Failing to pass to the north-east beyond Nova Zembla, he returned to England in August.

J. M. Read, Jr., Historical Inquiry Concerning Henry Hudson, pages 133-138.

      ALSO IN
      G. M. Asher,
      Henry Hudson, the Navigator,
      (Hakluyt Society, 1860).

AMERICA: A. D. 1608-1616.
   Champlain's Explorations in the Valley of the St. Lawrence and
   the Great Lakes.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1608-1611, and 1611-1616.

AMERICA: A. D. 1609.
   Hudson's Voyage of Discovery for the Dutch.

   "The failure of two expeditions daunted the enterprise of
   Hudson's employers [the Muscovy Company, in England]; they
   could not daunt the courage of the great navigator, who was
   destined to become the rival of Smith and of Champlain. He
   longed to tempt once more the dangers of the northern sea;
   and, repairing to Holland, he offered, in the service of the
   Dutch East India Company, to explore the icy wastes in search
   of the coveted passage. The voyage of Smith to Virginia
   stimulated desire; the Zealanders, fearing the loss of
   treasure, objected; but, by the influence of Balthazar
   Moucheron, the directors for Amsterdam resolved on equipping a
   small vessel of discovery; and, on the 4th day of April, 1609,
   the 'Crescent' [or 'Half-Moon' as the name of the little ship
   is more commonly translated], commanded by Hudson, and manned
   by a mixed crew of Englishmen and Hollanders, his son being of
   the number, set sail for the north-western passage. Masses of
   ice impeded the navigation towards Nova Zembla; Hudson, who
   had examined the maps of John Smith of Virginia, turned to the
   west; and passing beyond Greenland and Newfoundland, and
   running down the coast of Acadia, he anchored, probably, in
   the mouth of the Penobscot. Then, following the track of
   Gosnold, he came upon the promontory of Cape Cod, and,
   believing himself its first discoverer, gave it the name of
   New Holland. Long afterwards, it was claimed as the
   north-eastern boundary of New Netherlands. From the sands of
   Cape Cod, he steered a southerly course till he was opposite
   the entrance into the bay of Virginia, where Hudson remembered
   that his countrymen were planted.
   Then, turning again to the north, he discovered the Delaware
   Bay, examined its currents and its soundings, and, without
   going on shore, took note of the aspect of the country. On the
   3d day of September, almost at the time when Champlain was
   invading New York from the north, less than five months after
   the truce with Spain, which gave the Netherlands a diplomatic
   existence as a state, the 'Crescent' anchored within Sandy
   Hook, and from the neighboring shores, that were crowned with
   'goodly oakes,' attracted frequent visits from the natives.
   After a week's delay, Hudson sailed through the Narrows, and
   at the mouth of the river anchored in a harbor which was
   pronounced to be very good for all winds. … Ten days were
   employed in exploring the river; the first of Europeans,
   Hudson went sounding his way above the Highlands, till at last
   the 'Crescent' had sailed some miles beyond the city of
   Hudson, and a boat had advanced a little beyond Albany.
   Frequent intercourse was held with the astonished natives [and
   two battles fought with them]. … Having completed his
   discovery, Hudson descended the stream to which time has given
   his name, and on the 4th day of October, about the season of
   the return of John Smith to England, he set sail for Europe.
   … A happy return voyage brought the 'Crescent' into
   Dartmouth. Hudson forwarded to his Dutch employers a brilliant
   account of his discoveries; but he never revisited the lands
   which he eulogized: and the Dutch East-India Company refused
   to search further for the north-western passage."

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 15
      (or part 2, chapter 12 of "Author's Last Revision")

      ALSO IN
      H. R. Cleveland,
      Life of Henry Hudson
      (Library of American Biographies, volume 10),
      chapters 3-4

      R. Juet,
      Journal of Hudson's Voyage
      (New York History Society Collection,
      Second Series, volume 1).

      J. V. N. Yates and J. W. Moulton,
      History of the State of New York,
      part 1.

AMERICA: A. D. 1610-1614.
   The Dutch occupation of New Netherland, and Block's coasting

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.
   The Voyages of Capt. John Smith to North Virginia.
   The Naming of the country New England.

"From the time of Capt. Smith's departure from Virginia [see VIRGINIA: A. D. 1607-1610], till the year 1614, there is a chasm in his biography. … In 1614, probably by his advice and at his suggestion, an expedition was fitted out by some London merchants, in the expense of which he also shared, for the purposes of trade and discovery in New England, or, as it was then called, North Virginia. … In March, 1614, he set sail from London with two ships, one commanded by himself, and the other by Captain Thomas Hunt. They arrived, April 30th, at the island of Manhegin, on the coast of Maine, where they built seven boats. The purposes for which they were sent were to capture whales and to search for mines of gold or copper, which were said to be there, and, if these failed, to make up a cargo of fish and furs. Of mines, they found no indications, and they found whale-fishing a 'costly conclusion;' for, although they saw many, and chased them too, they succeeded in taking none. They thus lost the best part of the fishing season; but, after giving up their gigantic game, they diligently employed the months of July and August in taking and curing codfish, an humble, but more certain prey. While the crew were thus employed, Captain Smith, with eight men in a small boat, surveyed and examined the whole coast, from Penobscot to Cape Cod, trafficking with the Indians for furs, and twice fighting with them, and taking such observations of the prominent points as enabled him to construct a map of the country. He then sailed for England, where he arrived in August, within six months after his departure. He left Captain Hunt behind him, with orders to dispose of his cargo of fish in Spain. Unfortunately, Hunt was a sordid and unprincipled miscreant, who resolved to make his countrymen odious to the Indians, and thus prevent the establishment of a permanent colony, which would diminish the large gains he and a few others derived by monopolizing a lucrative traffic. For this purpose, having decoyed 24 of the natives on board his ship, he carried them off and sold them as slaves in the port of Malaga. … Captain Smith, upon his return, presented his map of the country between Penobscot and Cape Cod to Prince Charles (afterwards Charles I.), with a request that he would substitute others, instead of the 'barbarous names' which had been given to particular places. Smith himself gave to the country the name of New England, as he expressly states, and not Prince Charles, as is commonly supposed. … The first port into which Captain Smith put on his return to England was Plymouth. There he related his adventures to some of his friends, 'who,' he says, 'as I supposed, were interested in the dead patent of this unregarded country.' The Plymouth Company of adventurers to North Virginia, by flattering hopes and large promises, induced him to engage his services to them." Accordingly in March, 1615, he sailed from Plymouth, with two vessels under his command, bearing 16 settlers, besides their crew. A storm dismasted Smith's ship and drove her back to Plymouth. "His consort, commanded by Thomas Dermer, meanwhile proceeded on her voyage, and returned with a profitable cargo in August; but the object, which was to effect a permanent settlement, was frustrated. Captain Smith's vessel was probably found to be so much shattered as to render it inexpedient to repair her; for we find that he set sail a second time from Plymouth, on the 24th of June, in a small bark of 60 tons, manned by 30 men, and carrying with him the same 16 settlers he had taken before. But an evil destiny seemed to hang over this enterprise, and to make the voyage a succession of disasters and disappointments." It ended in Smith's capture by a piratical French fleet and his detention for some months, until he made a daring escape in a small boat. "While he had been detained on board the French pirate, in order, as he says, 'to keep my perplexed thoughts from too much meditation of my miserable estate,' he employed himself in writing a narrative of his two voyages to New England, and an account of the country. This was published in a quarto form in June, 1616. … Captain Smith's work on New England was the first to recommend that country as a place of settlement."

G. S. Hillard, Life of Captain John Smith (chapters 14-15).

      ALSO IN
      Captain John Smith,
      Description of New England.


AMERICA: A. D. 1619.
   Introduction of negro slavery into Virginia.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1619.

AMERICA: A. D. 1620.
   The Planting of the Pilgrim Colony at Plymouth, and the
   Chartering of the Council for New England.

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

AMERICA: A. D. 1620.
   Formation of the Government of Rio de La Plata.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

AMERICA: A. D. 1621.
   Conflicting claims of England and France on the North-eastern coast.
   Naming and granting of Nova Scotia.

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

AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
   The Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

"Sir Robert Heath, attorney-general to Charles I., obtained a grant of the lands between the 38th [36th?] degree of north latitude to the river St. Matheo. His charter bears date of October 5, 1629. … The tenure is declared to be as ample as any bishop of Durham [Palatine], in the kingdom of England, ever held and enjoyed, or ought or could of right have held and enjoyed. Sir Robert, his heirs and assigns, are constituted the true and absolute lords and proprietors, and the country is erected into a province by the name of Carolina [or Carolana] and the islands are to be called the Carolina islands. Sir Robert conveyed his right some time after to the earl of Arundel. This nobleman, it is said, planted several parts of his acquisition, but his attempt to colonize was checked by the war with Scotland, and afterwards the civil war. Lord Maltravers, who soon after, on his father's death, became earl of Arundel and Sussex … made no attempt to avail himself of the grant. … Sir Robert Heath's grant of land, to the southward of Virginia, perhaps the most extensive possession ever owned by an individual, remained for a long time almost absolutely waste and uncultivated. This vast extent of territory occupied all the country between the 30th and 36th degrees of northern latitude, which embraces the present states of North and South Carolina, Georgia, [Alabama], Tennessee, Mississippi, and, with very little exceptions, the whole state of Louisiana, and the territory of East and West Florida, a considerable part of the state of Missouri, the Mexican provinces of Texas, Chiuhaha, &c. The grantee had taken possession of the country, soon after he had obtained his title, which he afterwards had conveyed to the earl of Arundel. Henry lord Maltravers appears to have obtained some aid from the province of Virginia in 1639, at the desire of Charles I., for the settlement of Carolana, and the country had since become the property of a Dr. Cox; yet, at this time, there were two points only in which incipient English settlements could be discerned; the one on the northern shore of Albemarle Sound and the streams that flow into it. The population of it was very thin, and the greatest portion of it was on the north-east bank of Chowan river. The settlers had come from that part of Virginia now known as the County of Nansemond. … They had been joined by a number of Quakers and other sectaries, whom the spirit of intolerance had driven from New England, and some emigrants from Bermudas. … The other settlement of the English was at the mouth of Cape Fear river; … those who composed it had come thither from New England in 1659. Their attention was confined to rearing cattle. It cannot now be ascertained whether the assignees of Carolina ever surrendered the charter under which it was held, nor whether it was considered as having become vacated or obsolete by non-user, or by any other means."

F. X. Martin, History of North Carolina, volume 1, chapter 5 and 7.

AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
   The Royal Charter to the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay.


AMERICA: A. D. 1629-1631.
   The Dutch occupation of the Delaware.

See DELAWARE: A. D. 1629-1631.

AMERICA: A. D. 1629-1632.
   English Conquest and brief occupation of New France.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1628-1632.

AMERICA: A. D. 1632.
   The Charter to Lord Baltimore and the founding of Maryland.

See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632, and A. D. 1633-1637.

AMERICA: A. D. 1638.
   The planting of a Swedish Colony on the Delaware.

See DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.

AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.
   The Buccaneers and their piratical warfare with Spain.

   "The 17th century gave birth to a class of rovers wholly
   distinct from any of their predecessors in the annals of the
   world, differing as widely in their plans, organization and
   exploits as in the principles that governed their actions. …
   After the native inhabitants of Haiti had been exterminated,
   and the Spaniards had sailed farther west, a few adventurous
   men from Normandy settled on the shores of the island, for the
   purpose of hunting the wild bulls and hogs which roamed at
   will through the forests. The small island of Tortugas was
   their market; thither they repaired with their salted and
   smoked meat, their hides, &c., and disposed of them in
   exchange for powder, lead, and other necessaries. The places
   where these semi-wild hunters prepared the slaughtered
   carcases were called 'boucans,' and they themselves became
   known as Buccaneers. Probably the world has never before or
   since witnessed such an extraordinary association as theirs.
   Unburdened by women-folk or children, these men lived in
   couples, reciprocally rendering each other services, and
   having entire community of property—a condition termed by
   them matelotage, from the word 'matelot,' by which they
   addressed one another. … A man on joining the fraternity
   completely merged his identity. Each member received a
   nickname, and no attempt was ever made to inquire into his
   antecedents. When one of their number married, he ceased to be
   a buccaneer, having forfeited his membership by so civilized a
   proceeding. He might continue to dwell on the coast, and to
   hunt cattle, but he was no longer a 'matelot'—as a Benedick
   he had degenerated to a 'colonist.' … Uncouth and lawless
   though the buccaneers were, the sinister signification now
   attaching to their name would never have been merited had it
   not been for the unreasoning jealousy of the Spaniards. The
   hunters were actually a source of profit to that nation, yet
   from an insane antipathy to strangers the dominant race
   resolved on exterminating the settlers. Attacked whilst
   dispersed in pursuance of their avocations, the latter fell
   easy victims; many of them were wantonly massacred, others
   dragged into slavery. … Breathing hatred and vengeance, 'the
   brethren of the coast' united their scattered forces, and a
   war of horrible reprisals commenced.
   Fresh troops arrived from Spain, whilst the ranks of the
   buccaneers were filled by adventurers of all nations, allured
   by love of plunder, and fired with indignation at the
   cruelties of the aggressors. … The Spaniards, utterly
   failing to oust their opponents, hit upon a new expedient, so
   short-sighted that it reflects but little credit on their
   statesmanship. This was the extermination of the horned
   cattle, by which the buccaneers derived their means of
   subsistence; a general slaughter took place, and the breed was
   almost extirpated. … The puffed up arrogance of the Spaniard
   was curbed by no prudential consideration; calling upon every
   saint in his calendar, and raining curses on the heretical
   buccaneers, he deprived them of their legitimate occupation,
   and created wilfully a set of desperate enemies, who harassed
   the colonial trade of an empire already betraying signs of
   feebleness with the pertinacity of wolves, and who only
   desisted when her commerce had been reduced to insignificance.
   … Devoured by an undying hatred of their assailants, the
   buccaneers developed into a new association—the freebooters."

C. H. Eden, The West Indies, chapter 3.

"The monarchs both of England and France, but especially the former, connived at and even encouraged the freebooters [a name which the pronunciation of French sailors transformed into 'flibustiers,' while that corruption became Anglicized in its turn and produced the word filibusters], whose services could be obtained in time of war, and whose actions could be disavowed in time of peace. Thus buccaneer, filibuster, and sea-rover, were for the most part at leisure to hunt wild cattle, and to pillage and massacre the Spaniards wherever they found an opportunity. When not on some marauding expedition, they followed the chase." The piratical buccaneers were first organized under a leader in 1639, the islet of Tortuga being their favorite rendezvous. "So rapid was the growth of their settlements that in 1641 we find governors appointed, and at San Christobal a governor-general named De Poincy, in charge of the French filibusters in the Indies. During that year Tortuga was garrisoned by French troops, and the English were driven out, both from that islet and from Santo Domingo, securing harborage elsewhere in the islands. Nevertheless corsairs of both nations often made common cause. … In [1654] Tortuga was again recaptured by the Spaniards, but in 1660 fell once more into the hands of the French; and in their conquest of Jamaica in 1655 the British troops were reenforced by a large party of buccaneers." The first of the more famous buccaneers, and apparently the most ferocious among them all, was a Frenchman called François L'Olonnois, who harried the coast of Central America between 1660-1665 with six ships and 700 men. At the same time another buccaneer named Mansvelt, was rising in fame, and with him, as second in command, a Welshman, Henry Morgan, who became the most notorious of all. In 1668, Morgan attacked and captured the strong town of Portobello, on the Isthmus, committing indescribable atrocities. In 1671 he crossed the Isthmus, defeated the Spaniards in battle and gained possession of the great and wealthy city of Panama—the largest and richest in the New World, containing at the time 30,000 inhabitants. The city was pillaged, fired and totally destroyed. The exploits of this ruffian and the stolen riches which he carried home to England soon afterward, gained the honors of knighthood for him, from the worthy hands of Charles II. In 1680, the buccaneers under one Coxon again crossed the Isthmus, seized Panama, which had been considerably rebuilt, and captured there a Spanish fleet of four ships, in which they launched themselves upon the Pacific. From that time their plundering operations were chiefly directed against the Pacific coast. Towards the close of the 17th century, the war between England and France, and the Bourbon alliance of Spain with France, brought about the discouragement, the decline and finally the extinction of the buccaneer organization.

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States: Central America, volume 2, chapter 26-30.

      ALSO IN
      W. Thornbury,
      The Buccaneers.

      A. O. Exquemelin,
      History of the Buccaneers.

      J. Burney,
      History of the Buccaneers of America.

See, also, JAMAICA: A. D. 1655-1796.

AMERICA: A. D. 1655.
   Submission of the Swedes on the Delaware to the Dutch.

See DELAWARE: A. D. 1640-1656.

AMERICA: A. D. 1663.
   The grant of the Carolinas to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury,
   and others.

See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.

AMERICA: A. D. 1664.
   English conquest of New Netherland.

See NEW YORK: A. D.1664.

AMERICA: A. D. 1673.
   The Dutch reconquest of New Netherland.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

AMERICA: A. D. 1673-1682.
   Discovery and exploration of the Mississippi, by Marquette and
   La Salle.
   Louisiana named and possessed by the French.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1634-1673, and 1669-1687.

AMERICA: A. D. 1674.
   Final surrender of New Netherland to the English.


AMERICA: A. D. 1681.
   The proprietary grant to William Penn.


AMERICA: A. D. 1689-1697. The first Inter-Colonial War: King Williams's War (The war of the League of Augsburg).

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690; 1692-1697;
      also, NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.

AMERICA: A. D. 1690.
   The first Colonial Congress.

      also, CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690.

AMERICA: A. D. 1698-1712.
   The French colonization of Louisiana.
   Broad claims of France to the whole Valley of the Mississippi.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

AMERICA: A. D. 1700-1735. The Spread of French occupation in the Mississippi Valley and on the Lakes.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1700-1735.

AMERICA: A. D. 1702.
   Union of the two Jerseys as a royal province.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1688-1738.

AMERICA: A. D. 1702-1713.
   The Second Inter-Colonial War: Queen Anne's War (The War of
   the Spanish Succession).
   Final acquisition of Nova Scotia by the English.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
      CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1711-1713.

AMERICA: A. D. 1713.
   Division of territory between England and France by the Treaty
   of Utrecht.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE) A. D. 1711-1713.


AMERICA: A. D. 1729.
   End of the proprietary government in North Carolina.

See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1729.

AMERICA: A. D. 1732.
   The colonization of Georgia by General Oglethrope.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

AMERICA: A. D. 1744-1748. The Third Inter-Colonial War: King George's War (The War of the Austrian Succession).

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

AMERICA: A. D. 1748-1760.
   Unsettled boundary disputes of England and France.

   The fourth and last inter-colonial war, called the French and
   Indian War (The Seven Years War of Europe).

English Conquest of Canada.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1750-1753; 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D.1749-1755; 1755;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754; 1754; 1755;
      CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

AMERICA: A. D. 1749.
   Introduction of negro slavery into Georgia.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1735-1749.

AMERICA: A. D. 1750-1753:
   Dissensions among the English Colonies on the eve of the great
   French War.


AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
   The Colonial Congress at Albany.
   Franklin's Plan of Union.


AMERICA: A. D. 1763.
   The Peace of Paris.

   Canada, Cape Breton, Newfoundland, and Louisiana east of the
   Mississippi (except New Orleans) ceded by France to Great

West of the Mississippi and New Orleans to Spain.

Florida by Spain to Great Britain.


AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.
   Pontiac's War.


AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1766.
   Growing discontent of the English Colonies.
   The question of taxation.
   The Stamp Act and its repeal.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775, to 1766.

AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1769. Spanish occupation of New Orleans and Western Louisiana, and the revolt against it.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1766-1768, and 1769.

AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1783.
   Independence of the English colonies achieved.

      A. D. 1775 (APRIL) to 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

AMERICA: A. D. 1776.
   Erection of the Spanish Vice-royalty of Buenos Ayres.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1816.
   Revolt, independence and Confederation of the Argentine

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.

AMERICA: A. D. 1818.
   Chilean independence achieved.

See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.

AMERICA: A. D. 1820-1821.
   Independence Acquired by Mexico and the Central American

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826,
      and CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

AMERICA: A. D. 1824.
   Peruvian independence won at Ayacucho.

See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

—————AMERICA: End—————

   Linguistic Classification.

In the Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology (for 1885-86, published in 1891), Major J. W. Powell, the Director of the Bureau, has given a classification of the languages of the North American aborigines based upon the most recent investigations. The following is a list of families of speech, or linguistic stocks, which are defined and named:

   "Adaizan [identified since the publication of this list as
     being but part of the Caddoan stock].

These families are severally defined in the summary of information given below, and the relations to them of all tribes having any historical importance are shown by cross-references and otherwise; but many other groupings and associations, and many tribal names not scientifically recognized, are likewise exhibited here, for the reason that they have a significance in history and are the subjects of frequent allusion in literature.



AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Abnakis, or Abenaques, or Taranteens.

"The Abnakis were called Taranteens by the English, and Owenagungas by the New Yorkers. … We must admit that a large portion of the North American Indians were called Abnakis, if not by themselves, at least by others. This word Abnaki is found spelt Abenaques, Abenaki, Wapanachki, and Wabenakies by different writers of various nations, each adopting the manner of spelling according to the rules of pronunciation of their respective native languages. … The word generally received is spelled thus, Abnaki, but it should be 'Wanbanaghi,' from the Indian word 'wanbanban,' designating the people of the Aurora Borealis, or in general, of the place where the sky commences to appear white at the breaking of the day. … It has been difficult for different writers to determine the number of nations or tribes comprehended under this word Abnaki. It being a general word, by itself designates the people of the east or northeast. … We find that the word Abnaki was applied in general, more or less, to all the Indians of the East, by persons who were not much acquainted with the aborigines of the country. On the contrary, the early writers and others well acquainted with the natives of New France and Acadia, and the Indians themselves, by Abnakis always pointed out a particular nation existing north-west and south of the Kennebec river, and they never designated any other people of the Atlantic shore, from Cape Hatteras to Newfoundland. … The Abnakis had five great villages, two amongst the French colonies, which must be the village of St. Joseph or Sillery, and that of St. Francis de Sales, both in Canada, three on the head waters, or along three rivers, between Acadia and New England. These three rivers are the Kennebec, the Androscoggin, and the Saco. … The nation of the Abnakis bear evident marks of having been an original people in their name, manners, and language. They show a kind of civilization which must be the effect of antiquity, and of a past flourishing age."

      E. Vetromile,
      The Abnaki Indians
      (Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 6)

      See, also, below:


   For some account of the wars of the Abnakis, with the New
   England colonies,

      CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690, and 1692-1697;
      NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (JULY-SEPT.); 1702-1710, 1711-1713;
      and NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Absarokas, Upsarokas, or Crows.





See MEXICO, A. D. 1325-1502.


[Footnote: See Note, Appendix E.]

These Indians were a "tribe who, according to Dr. Sibley, lived about the year 1800 near the old Spanish fort or mission of Adaize, 'about 40 miles from Natchitoches, below the Yattassees, on a lake called Lac Macdon, which communicates with the division of Red River that passes by Bayou Pierre' [Lewis and Clarke]. A vocabulary of about 250 words is all that remains to us of their language, which according to the collector, Dr. Sibley, 'differs from all others, and is so difficult to speak or understand that no nation can speak ten words of it. … A recent comparison of this vocabulary by Mr. Gatschet, with several Caddoan dialects, has led to the discovery that a considerable percentage of the Adái words have a more or less remote affinity with Caddoan, and he regards it as a Caddoan dialect."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, pages 45-46.

See preceding page.


"This is a term bestowed by the Iroquois, in derision, on the tribes who appear, at an early day, to have descended the Utawas river, and occupied the left banks of the St. Lawrence, above the present site of Quebec, about the close of the 15th century. It is said to signify men who eat trees, in allusion to their using the bark of certain trees for food, when reduced to straits, in their war excursions. The French, who entered the St. Lawrence from the gulf, called the same people Algonquins—a generic appellation, which has been long employed and come into universal use, among historians and philologists. According to early accounts, the Adirondacks had preceded the Iroquois in arts and attainments."

H. R. Schoolcraft, Notes on the Iroquois, chapter 5.


   Æsopus Indians.


   Among several names which the Mohawks (see below: IROQUOIS)
   bore in early colonial history was that of the Agniers.

      F. Parkman,
      The Conspiracy of Pontiac,
      volume 1, page 9, foot-note.





   Algonquian (Algonkin) Family.

"About the period 1500-1600, those related tribes whom we now know by the name of Algonkins were at the height of their prosperity. They occupied the Atlantic coast from the Savannah river on the south to the strait of Belle Isle on the north. … The dialects of all these were related, and evidently at some distant day had been derived from the same primitive tongue. Which of them had preserved the ancient forms most closely, it may be premature to decide positively, but the tendency of modern studies has been to assign that place to the Cree—the northernmost of all. We cannot erect a genealogical tree of these dialects. … We may, however, group them in such a manner as roughly to indicate their relationship. This I do"—in the following list:

   Old Algonkin.
   Chipeway, Ottawa, Pottawattomie, Miami, Peoria, Pea,
   Piankishaw, Kaskaskia, Menominee, Sac, Fox, Kikapoo.
   Sheshatapoosh, Secoffee, Micmac, Melisceet, Etchemin, Abnaki.
   Mohegan, Massachusetts, Shawnee, Minsi, Unami, Unalachtigo
   [the last three named forming, together, the nation of the
   Lenape or Delawares], Nanticoke, Powhatan, Pampticoke.
   Blackfoot, Gros Ventre, Sheyenne.
   … All the Algonkin nations who dwelt north of the Potomac,
   on the east shore of Chesapeake Bay, and in the basins of the
   Delaware and Hudson rivers, claimed near kinship and an
   identical origin, and were at times united into a loose,
   defensive confederacy. By the western and southern tribes they
   were collectively known as Wapanachkik—'those of the eastern
   region'—which in the form Abnaki is now confined to the
   remnant of a tribe in Maine. … The members of the
   confederacy were the Mohegans (Mahicanni) of the Hudson, who
   occupied the valley of that river to the falls above the site
   of Albany, the various New Jersey tribes, the Delawares proper
   on the Delaware river and its branches, including the Minsi or
   Monseys, among the mountains, the Nanticokes, between
   Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic, and the small tribe called
   Canai, Kanawhas or Ganawese, whose towns were on tributaries
   of the Potomac and Patuxent. … Linguistically, the Mohegans
   were more closely allied to the tribes of New England than to
   those of the Delaware Valley. Evidently, most of the tribes of
   Massachusetts and Connecticut were comparatively recent
   offshoots of the parent stem on the Hudson, supposing the
   course of migration had been eastward. … The Nanticokes
   occupied the territory between Chesapeake Bay and the ocean,
   except its southern extremity, which appears to have been
   under the control of the Powhatan tribe of Virginia."

D. G. Brinton, The Lenape and their Legends. chapters 1-2.

"Mohegans, Munsees, Manhattans, Metöacs, and other affiliated tribes and bands of Algonquin lineage, inhabited the banks of the Hudson and the islands, bay and seaboard of New York, including Long Island, during the early periods of the rise of the Iroquois Confederacy. … The Mohegans finally retired over the Highlands east of them into the valley of the Housatonic. The Munsees and Nanticokes retired to the Delaware river and reunited with their kindred, the Lenapees, or modern Delawares. The Manhattans, and numerous other bands and sub-tribes melted away under the influence of liquor and died in their tracks."

H. R. Schoolcraft, Notes on the Iroquois, chapter 5.


"On the basis of a difference in dialect, that portion of the Algonquin Indians which dwelt in New England has been classed in two divisions, one consisting of those who inhabited what is now the State of Maine, nearly up to its western border, the other consisting of the rest of the native population. The Maine Indians may have been some 15,000 in number, or somewhat less than a third of the native population of New England. That portion of them who dwelt furthest towards the east were known by the name of Etetchemins. The Abenaquis, including the Tarratines, hunted on both sides of the Penobscot, and westward as far as the Saco, if not quite to the Piscataqua. The tribes found in the rest of New England were designated by a greater variety of names. The home of the Penacook or Pawtucket Indians was in the southeast corner of what is now New Hampshire and the contiguous region of Massachusetts. Next dwelt the Massachusetts tribe, along the bay of that name. Then were found successively the Pokanokets, or Wampanoags, in the southeasterly region of Massachusetts, and by Buzzard's and Narragansett Bays; the Narragansetts, with a tributary race called Nyantics in what is now the western part of the State of Rhode Island; the Pequots, between the Narragansetts and the river formerly called the Pequot River, now the Thames; and the Mohegans, spreading themselves beyond the River Connecticut. In the central region of Massachusetts were the Nipmucks, or Nipnets; and along Cape Cod were the Nausets, who appeared to have owed some fealty to the Pokanokets. The New England Indians exhibited an inferior type of humanity. … Though fleet and agile when excited to some occasional effort, they were found to be incapable of continuous labor. Heavy and phlegmatic, they scarcely wept or smiled."

J. G. Palfrey, Compendious History of New England, book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

"The valley of the 'Cahohatatea,' or Mauritius River [i. e., the Hudson River, as now named] at the time Hudson first ascended its waters, was inhabited, chiefly, by two aboriginal races of Algonquin lineage, afterwards known among the English colonists by the generic names of Mohegans and Mincees. The Dutch generally called the Mohegans, Mahicans; and the Mincees, Sanhikans. These two tribes were subdivided into numerous minor bands, each of which had a distinctive name. The tribes on the east side of the river were generally Mohegans; those on the west side, Mincees. They were hereditary enemies. … Long Island, or 'Sewan-hacky,' was occupied by the savage tribe of Metowacks, which was subdivided into various clans. … Staten Island, on the opposite side of the bay, was inhabited by the Monatons. … Inland, to the west, lived the Raritans and the Hackinsacks; while the regions in the vicinity of the well-known 'Highlands,' south of Sandy Hook, were inhabited by a band or sub-tribe called the Nevesincks or Navisinks. … To the south and west, covering the centre of New Jersey, were the Aquamachukes and the Stankekans; while the valley of the Delaware, northward from the Schuylkill, was inhabited by various tribes of the Lenape race. … The island of the Manhattans" was occupied by the tribe which received that name (see MANHATTAN). On the shores of the river, above, dwelt the Tappans, the Weckquaesgeeks, the Sint Sings, "whose chief village was named Ossin-Sing, or 'the Place of Stones,'" the Pachami, the Waorinacks, the Wappingers, and the Waronawankongs. "Further north, and occupying the present counties of Ulster and Greene, were the Minqua clans of Minnesincks, Nanticokes, Mincees, and Delawares. These clans had pressed onward from the upper valley of the Delaware. … They were generally known among the Dutch as the Æsopus Indians."

J. R Brodhead, History of the State of New York, volume 1, chapter 3

"The area formerly occupied by the Algonquian family was more extensive than that of any other linguistic stock in North America, their territory reaching from Labrador to the Rocky Mountains, and from Churchill River of Hudson Bay as far south at least as Pamlico Sound of North Carolina. In the eastern part of this territory was an area occupied by Iroquoian tribes, surrounded on almost all sides by their Algonquian neighbors. On the south the Algonquian tribes were bordered by those of Iroquoian and Siouan (Catawba) stock, on the southwest and west by the Muskhogean and Siouan tribes, and on the northwest by the Kitunahan and the great Athapascan families, while along the coast of Labrador and the eastern shore of Hudson Bay they came in contact with the Eskimo, who were gradually retreating before them to the north. In Newfoundland they encountered the Beothukan family, consisting of but a single tribe. A portion of the Shawnee at some early period had separated from the main body of the tribe in central Tennessee and pushed their way down to the Savannah River in South Carolina, where, known as Savannahs, they carried on destructive wars with the surrounding tribes until about the beginning of the 18th century they were finally driven out and joined the Delaware in the north. Soon afterwards the rest of the tribe was expelled by the Cherokee and Chicasa, who thenceforward claimed all the country stretching north to the Ohio River. The Cheyenne and Arapaho, two allied tribes of this stock, had become separated from their kindred on the north and had forced their way through hostile tribes across the Missouri to the Black Hills country of South Dakota, and more recently into Wyoming and Colorado, thus forming the advance guard of the Algonquian stock in that direction, having the Siouan tribes behind them and those of the Shoshonean family in front. [The following are the] principal tribes: Abnaki, Algonquin, Arapaho, Cheyenne, Conoy, Cree, Delaware, Fox, Illinois, Kickapoo, Mahican, Massachuset, Menominee, Miami, Micmac, Mohegan, Montagnais, Montauk, Munsee, Nanticoke, Narraganset, Nauset, Nipmuc, Ojibwa, Ottawa, Pamlico, Pennacook, Pequot, Piankishaw, Pottawotomi, Powhatan, Sac, Shawnee, Siksika, Wampanoag, Wappinger. The present number of the Algonquian stock is about 95,600, of whom about 60,000 are in Canada and the remainder in the United States."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, pages 47-48.

      ALSO IN
      J. W. De Forest,
      History of the Indians of Connecticut.

A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archæologia Americana, volume 2), intro., section 2.

      S. G. Drake,
      Aboriginal Races of North America,
      book 2-3.

      See, also, below:

For the Indian wars of New England,

      See NEW ENGLAND:
      A. D. 1637 (THE PEQUOT WAR);
      A. D. 1674-1675 to 1676-1678 (KING PHILIP'S WAR).

See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR.


   Alibamus, or Alabamas.


   Alleghans, or Allegewi, or Talligewi.

"The oldest tribe of the United States, of which there is a distinct tradition, were the Alleghans. The term is perpetuated in the principal chain of mountains traversing the country. This tribe, at an antique period, had the seat of their power in the Ohio Valley and its confluent streams, which were the sites of their numerous towns and villages. They appear originally to have borne the name of Alli, or Alleg, and hence the names of Talligewi and Allegewi. (Trans. Am. Phi. Society, volume 1.) By adding to the radical of this word the particle 'hany' or 'ghany,' meaning river, they described the principal scene of their residence—namely, the Alleghany, or River of the Alleghans, now called Ohio. The word Ohio is of Iroquois origin, and of a far later period; having been bestowed by them after their conquest of the country, in alliance with the Lenapees, or ancient Delawares. (Phi. Trans.) The term was applied to the entire river, from its confluence with the Mississippi, to its origin in the broad spurs of the Alleghanies, in New York and Pennsylvania. … There are evidences of antique labors in the alluvial plains and valleys of the Scioto, Miami, and Muskingum, the Wabash, Kaskaskia, Cahokia, and Illinois, denoting that the ancient Alleghans, and their allies and confederates, cultivated the soil, and were semi-agriculturists. These evidences have been traced, at late periods, to the fertile table-lands of Indiana and Michigan. The tribes lived in fixed towns, cultivating extensive fields of the zea-maize; and also, as denoted by recent discoveries, … of some species of beans, vines, and esculents. They were, in truth, the mound builders."

H. R. Schoolcraft, Information respecting the Indian Tribes, part 5, page 133.

This conclusion, to which Mr. Schoolcraft had arrived, that the ancient Alleghans or Tallegwi were the mound builders of the Ohio Valley is being sustained by later investigators, and seems to have become an accepted opinion among those of highest authority. The Alleghans, moreover, are being identified with the Cherokees of later times, in whom their race, once supposed to be extinct, has apparently survived; while the fact, long suspected, that the Cherokee language is of the Iroquois family is being proved by the latest studies. According to Indian tradition, the Alleghans were driven from their ancient seats, long ago, by a combination against them of the Lenape (Delawares) and the Mengwe (Iroquois). The route of their migrations is being traced by the character of the mounds which they built, and of the remains gathered from the mounds. "The general movement [of retreat before the Iroquois and Lenape] … must have been southward, … and the exit of the Ohio mound-builders was, in all probability, up the Kanawah Valley on the same line that the Cherokees appear to have followed in reaching their historical locality. … If the hypothesis here advanced be correct, it is apparent that the Cherokees entered the immediate valley of the Mississippi from the northwest, striking it in the region of Iowa."

      C. Thomas,
      The Problem of the Ohio Mounds
      (Bureau of Ethnology, 1889).

      ALSO IN
      C. Thomas,
      Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the United States
      (Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-84).

      J. Heckewelder,
      Account of the Indian Nations,
      chapter 1.

      See, below:


See below: ANDESIANS.




"The term Andesians or Antesians, is used with geographical rather than ethnological limits, and embraces a number of tribes. First of these are the Cofan in Equador, east of Chimborazo. They fought valiantly against the Spaniards, and in times past killed many of the missionaries sent among them. Now they are greatly reduced and have become more gentle. The Huamaboya are their near neighbors. The Jivara, west of the river Pastaca, are a warlike tribe, who, possibly through a mixture of Spanish blood, have a European cast of countenance and a beard. The half Christian Napo or Quijo and their peaceful neighbors, the Zaporo, live on the Rio Napo. The Yamco, living on the lower Chambiva and crossing the Marañon, wandering as far as Saryacu, have a clearer complexion. The Pacamora and the Yuguarzongo live on the Maranon, where it leaves its northerly course and bends toward the east. The Cochiquima live on the lower Yavari; the Mayoruna, or Barbudo, on the middle Ucayali beside the Campo and Cochibo, the most terrible of South American Indians; they dwell in the woods between the Tapiche and the Marañon, and like the Jivaro have a beard. The Pano, who formerly dwelt in the territory of Lalaguna, but who now live in villages on the upper Ucayali, are Christians. … Their language is the principal one on the river, and it is shared by seven other tribes called collectively by the missionaries Manioto or Mayno. … Within the woods on the right bank live the Amahuaca and Shacaya. On the north they join the Remo, a powerful tribe who are distinguished from all the others by the custom of tattooing. Outside this Pano linguistic group stand the Campa, Campo, or Antis on the east slope of the Peruvian Cordillera at the source of the Rio Beni and its tributaries. The Chontaquiros, or Piru, now occupy almost entirely the bank of the Ucayali below the Pachilia. The Mojos or Moxos live in the Bolivian province of Moxos with the small tribes of the Baure, Itonama, Pacaguara. A number of smaller tribes belonging to the Antesian group need not be enumerated. The late Professor James Orton described the Indian tribes of the territory between Quito and the river Amazon. The Napo approach the type of the Quichua. … Among all the Indians of the Provincia del Oriente, the tribe of Jivaro is one of the largest. These people are divided into a great number of sub-tribes. All of these speak the clear musical Jivaro language. They are muscular, active men. … The Morona are cannibals in the full sense of the word. … The Campo, still very little known, is perhaps the largest Indian tribe in Eastern Peru, and, according to some, is related to the Inca race, or at least with their successors. They are said to be cannibals, though James Orton does not think this possible. … The nearest neighbors of the Campo are the Chontakiro, or Chontaquiro, or Chonquiro, called also Piru, who, according to Paul Marcoy, are said to be of the same origin with the Campo; but the language is wholly different. … Among the Pano people are the wild Conibo; they are the most interesting, but are passing into extinction."

The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor), volume 6, pages 227-231.


   Apache Group [Footnote: See Note, Appendix E.]

Under the general name of the Apaches "I include all the savage tribes roaming through New Mexico, the north-western portion of Texas, a small part of northern Mexico, and Arizona. … Owing to their roving proclivities and incessant raids they are led first in one direction and then in another. In general terms they may be said to range about as follows: The Comanches, Jetans, or Nauni, consisting of three tribes, the Comanches proper, the Yamparacks, and Tenawas, inhabiting northern Texas, eastern Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, Durango, and portions of south-western New Mexico, by language allied to the Shoshone family; the Apaches, who call themselves Shis Inday, or 'men of the woods,' and whose tribal divisions are the Chiricaguis, Coyoteros, Faraones, Gileños, Lipanes, Llaneros, Mescaleros, Mimbreños, Natages, Pelones, Pinaleños, Tejuas, Tontos, and Vaqueros, roaming over New Mexico, Arizona, North-western Texas, Chihuahua and Sonora, and who are allied by language to the great Tinneh family; the Navajos, or Tenuai, 'men,' as they designate themselves, having linguistic affinities with the Apache nation, with which they are sometimes classed, living in and around the Sierra de los Mimbres; the Mojaves, occupying both banks of the Colorado in Mojave Valley; the Hualapais, near the head-waters of Bill Williams Fork; the Yumas, on the east bank of the Colorado, near its junction with the Rio Gila; the Cosninos, who, like the Hualapais, are sometimes included in the Apache nation, ranging through the Mogollon Mountains; and the Yampais, between Bill Williams Fork and the Rio Hassayampa. … The Apache country is probably the most desert of all. … In both mountain and desert the fierce, rapacious Apache, inured from childhood to hunger and thirst, and heat and cold, finds safe retreat. … The Pueblos … are nothing but partially reclaimed Apaches or Comanches."

H. H. Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States, volume 1, chapter 5.

Dr. Brinton prefers the name Yuma for the whole of the Apache Group, confining the name Apache (that being the Yuma word for "fighting men") to the one tribe so called. "It has also been called the Katchan or Cuchan stock."

D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 109.

See, also, below: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.


"Among the aboriginal tribes of the United States perhaps none is more enigmatical than the Apalaches. They are mentioned as an important nation by many of the early French and Spanish travellers and historians, their name is preserved by a bay and river on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, and by the great eastern coast range of mountains, and has been applied by ethnologists to a family of cognate nations that found their hunting grounds from the Mississippi to the Atlantic and from the Ohio river to the Florida Keys; yet, strange to say, their own race and place have been but guessed at." The derivation of the name of the Apalaches "has been a 'questio vexata' among Indianologists." We must "consider it an indication of ancient connections with the southern continent, and in itself a pure Carib word. 'Apáliché' in the Tamanaca dialect of the Guaranay stem on the Orinoco signifies 'man,' and the earliest application of the name in the northern continent was as the title of the chief of a country, 'l'homme par excellence,' and hence, like very many other Indian tribes (Apaches, Lenni Lenape, Illinois), his subjects assumed by eminence the proud appellation of 'The Men.' … We have … found that though no general migration took place from the continent southward, nor from the islands northward, yet there was a considerable intercourse in both directions; that not only the natives of the greater and lesser Antilles and Yucatan, but also numbers of the Guaranay stem of the southern continent, the Caribs proper, crossed the Straits of Florida and founded colonies on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico; that their customs and language became to a certain extent grafted upon those of the early possessors of the soil; and to this foreign language the name Apalache belongs. As previously stated, it was used as a generic title, applied to a confederation of many nations at one time under the domination of one chief, whose power probably extended from the Alleghany mountains on the north to the shore of the Gulf; that it included tribes speaking a tongue closely akin to the Choktah is evident from the fragments we have remaining. … The location of the tribe in after years is very uncertain. Dumont placed them in the northern part of what is now Alabama and Georgia, near the mountains that bear their name. That a portion of them did live in this vicinity is corroborated by the historians of South Carolina, who say that Colonel Moore, in 1703, found them 'between the head-waters of the Savannah and Altamaha.' … According to all the Spanish authorities, on the other hand, they dwelt in the region of country between the Suwannee and Appalachicola rivers—yet must not be confounded with the Apalachicolos. … They certainly had a large and prosperous town in this vicinity, said to contain 1,000 warriors. … I am inclined to believe that these were different branches of the same confederacy. … In the beginning of the 18th century they suffered much from the devastations of the English, French and Creeks. … About the time Spain regained possession of the soil, they migrated to the West and settled on the Bayou Rapide of Red River. Here they had a village numbering about 50 souls."

D. G. Brinton, Notes on the Floridian Peninsula, chapter 2.

See, also, below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.









   Arawaks, or Arauacas.










   Athapascan Family.
   Sarcees [Footnote: See Note, Appendix E.]

"This name [Athapascans or Athabascans] has been applied to a class of tribes who are situated north of the great Churchill river, and north of the source of the fork of the Saskatchawine, extending westward till within about 150 miles of the Pacific Ocean. … The name is derived, arbitrarily, from Lake Athabasca, which is now more generally called the Lake of the Hills. Surrounding this lake extends the tribe of the Chippewyans, a people so-called by the Kenistenos and Chippewas, because they were found to be clothed, in some primary encounter, in the scanty garb of the fisher's skin. … We are informed by Mackenzie that the territory occupied by the Chippewyans extends between the parallels of 60° and 65° North and longitudes from 100° to 110° West."

H. R. Schoolcraft, Information Respecting the Indian Tribes, part 5, page 172.


"The Tinneh may be divided into four great families of nations; namely, the Chippewyans, or Athabascas, living between Hudson Bay and the Rocky Mountains; the Tacullies, or Carriers, of New Caledonia or North-western British America; the Kutchins, occupying both banks of the Upper Yukon and its tributaries, from near its mouth to the Mackenzie River, and the Kenai, inhabiting the interior from the lower Yukon to Copper River."

H. H. Bancroft, The Native Races of the Pacific States, chapter 2.

"The Indian tribes of Alaska and the adjacent region may be divided into two groups. …

1. Tinneh—Chippewyans of authors. … Father Petitot discusses the terms Athabaskans, Chippewayans, Montagnais, and Tinneh as applied to this group of Indians. … This great family includes a large number of American tribes extending from near the mouth of the Mackenzie south to the borders of Mexico. The Apaches and Navajos belong to it, and the family seems to intersect the continent of North America in a northerly and southerly direction, principally along the flanks of the Rocky Mountains. … The designation [Tinneh] proposed by Messrs. Ross and Gibbs has been accepted by most modern ethnologists. …

2. T'linkets, which family includes the Yakutats and other groups.

W. H. Dall, Tribes of the Extreme Northwest (Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 1).

"Wherever found, the members of this group present a certain family resemblance. In appearance they are tall and strong, the forehead low with prominent superciliary ridges, the eyes slightly oblique, the nose prominent but wide toward the base, the mouth large, the hands and feet small. Their strength and endurance are often phenomenal, but in the North, at least, their longevity is slight, few living beyond fifty. Intellectually they rank below most of their neighbors, and nowhere do they appear as fosterers of the germs of civilization. Where, as among the Navajos, we find them having some repute for the mechanical arts, it turns out that this is owing to having captured and adopted the members of more gifted tribes. … Agriculture was not practised either in the north or south, the only exception being the Navajos, and with them the inspiration came from other stocks. … The most cultured of their bands were the Navajos, whose name is said to signify 'large cornfields,' from their extensive agriculture. When the Spaniards first met them in 1541 they were tillers of the soil, erected large granaries for their crops, irrigated their fields by artificial water courses or acequias, and lived in substantial dwellings, partly underground; but they had not then learned the art of weaving the celebrated 'Navajo blankets,' that being a later acquisition of their artisans."

D. G. Brinton, The American Race, pages 69-72.


   Atsinas (Caddoes).

See Note, Appendix E.

See below: BLACKFEET.

   Attacapan Family.

"Derivation: From a Choctaw word meaning 'man-eater.' Little is known of the tribe, the language of which forms the basis of the present family. The sole knowledge possessed by Gallatin was derived from a vocabulary and some scanty information furnished by Dr. John Sibley, who collected his material in the year 1805. Gallatin states that the tribe was reduced to 50 men. … Mr. Gatschet collected some 2,000 words and a considerable body of text. His vocabulary differs considerably from the one furnished by Dr. Sibley and published by Gallatin. … The above material seems to show that the Attacapa language is distinct from all others, except possibly the Chitimachan."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 57.




      See below: MAYAS;
      also MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502;


See below: CARIBS.






See above: ANDESIANS.




See above: ANDESIANS.

   Beothukan Family.

The Beothuk were a tribe, now extinct, which is believed to have occupied the whole of Newfoundland at the time of its discovery. What is known of the language of the Beothuk indicates no relationship to any other American tongue.

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, page 57.



   Blackfeet, or Siksikas.

See Note, Appendix E.

"The tribe that wandered the furthest from the primitive home of the stock [the Algonquian] were the Blackfeet, or Sisika, which word has this signification. It is derived from their earlier habitat in the valley of the Red river of the north, where the soil was dark and blackened their moccasins. Their bands include the Blood or Kenai and the Piegan Indians. Half a century ago they were at the head of a confederacy which embraced these and also the Sarcee (Tinné) and the Atsina (Caddo) nations, and numbered about 30,000 souls. They have an interesting mythology and an unusual knowledge of the constellations."

D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 79.


And, below: FLATHEADS.

   Blood, or Kenai Indians.

See above: BLACKFEET.





   Caddoan Family.




See below: QUICHES, and MAYAS.



   Cambas, or Campo, or Campa.

      See above: ANDESIANS;











See below: GUCK OR COCO Group.

   Caribs and their Kindred.

"The warlike and unyielding character of these people, so different from that of the pusillanimous nations around them, and the wide scope of their enterprises and wanderings, like those of the nomad tribes of the Old World, entitle them to distinguished attention. … The traditional accounts of their origin, though of course extremely vague, are yet capable of being verified to a great degree by geographical facts, and open one of the rich veins of curious inquiry and speculation which abound in the New World. They are said to have migrated from the remote valleys embosomed in the Apalachian mountains. The earliest accounts we have of them represent them with weapons in their hands, continually engaged in wars, winning their way and shifting their abode, until, in the course of time, they found themselves at the extremity of Florida. Here, abandoning the northern continent, they passed over to the Lucayos [Bahamas], and thence gradually, in the process of years, from island to island of that vast verdant chain, which links, as it were, the end of Florida to the coast of Paria, on the southern continent. The archipelago extending from Porto Rico to Tobago was their stronghold, and the island of Guadaloupe in a manner their citadel. Hence they made their expeditions, and spread the terror of their name through all the surrounding countries. Swarms of them landed upon the southern continent, and overran some parts of terra firma. Traces of them have been discovered far in the interior of that vast country through which flows the Oroonoko. The Dutch found colonies of them on the banks of the Ikouteka, which empties into the Surinam; along the Esquibi, the Maroni, and other rivers of Guayana; and in the country watered by the windings of the Cayenne."

W. Irving, Life and Voyages of Columbus, book 6, chapter 3, (volume 1).

"To this account [substantially as given above] of the origin of the Insular Charaibes, the generality of historians have given their assent; but there are doubts attending it that are not easily solved. If they migrated from Florida, the imperfect state and natural course of their navigation induce a belief that traces of them would have been found on those islands which are near to the Florida shore; let the natives of the Bahamas, when discovered by Columbus, were evidently a similar people to those of Hispaniola. Besides, it is sufficiently known that there existed anciently many numerous and powerful tribes of Charaibes on the southern peninsula, extending from the river Oronoko to Essequebe, and throughout the whole province of Surinam, even to Brazil, some of which still maintain their independency. … I incline therefore to the opinion of Martyr, and conclude that the islanders were rather a colony from the Charaibes of South America, than from any nation of the North. Rochefort admits that their own traditions referred constantly to Guiana."

B. Edwards, History of British Colonies in the West Indies, book 1, chapter 2.

"The Carabisce, Carabeesi, Charaibes, Caribs, or Galibis, originally occupied [in Guiana] the principal rivers, but as the Dutch encroached upon their possessions they retired inland, and are now daily dwindling away. According to Mr. Hillhouse, they could formerly muster nearly 1,000 fighting men, but are now [1855] scarcely able to raise a tenth part of that number. … The smaller islands of the Caribbean Sea were formerly thickly populated by this tribe, but now not a trace of them remains."

H. G. Dalton, History of British Guiana, volume 1, chapter 1.

E. F. im Thurn, Among the Indians of Guiana, chapter 6.

"Recent researches have shown that the original home of the stock was south of the Amazon, and probably in the highlands at the head of the Tapajoz river. A tribe, the Bakairi, is still resident there, whose language is a pure and archaic form of the Carib tongue."

D. G. Brinton, Races and Peoples, page 268.

"Related to the Caribs stand a long list of small tribes … all inhabitants of the great primeval forest in and near Guiana. They may have characteristic differences, but none worthy of mention are known. In bodily appearance, according to all accounts, these relatives of the Caribs are beautiful. In Georgetown the Arauacas [or Arawaks] are celebrated for their beauty. They are slender and graceful, and their features handsome and regular, the face having a Grecian profile, and the skin being of a reddish cast. A little farther inland we find the Macushi [or Macusis], with a lighter complexion and a Roman nose. These two types are repeated in other tribes, except in the Tarumi, who are decidedly ugly. In mental characteristics great similarity prevails."

The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor), page 237.

"The Arawaks occupied on the continent the area of the modern Guiana, between the Corentyn and the Pomeroon rivers, and at one time all the West Indian Islands. From some of them they were early driven by the Caribs, and within 40 years of the date of Columbus' first voyage the Spanish had exterminated nearly all on the islands. Their course of migration had been from the interior of Brazil northward; their distant relations are still to be found between the headwaters of the Paraguay and Schingu rivers."

D. G. Brinton, Races and Peoples, page 268-269.

"The Kapohn (Acawoios, Waikas, &c.) claim kindred with the Caribs. … The Acawoios, though resolute and determined, are less hasty and impetuous than the Caribs. … According to their tradition, one of their hordes removed [to the Upper Demerera] … from the Masaruni. The Parawianas, who originally dwelt on the Demerera, having been exterminated by the continual incursions of the Caribs, the Waika-Acawoios occupied their vacant territory. … The Macusis … are supposed by some to have formerly inhabited the banks of the Orinoco. … As they are industrious and unwarlike, they have been the prey of every savage tribe around them. The Wapisianas are supposed to have driven them northward and taken possession of their country. The Brazilians, as well as the Caribs, Acawoios, &c., have long been in the habit of enslaving them. … The Arecunas have been accustomed to descend from the higher lands and attack the Macusis. … This tribe is said to have formerly dwelt on the banks of the Uaupes or Ucayari, a tributary of the Rio Negro. … The Waraus appear to have been the most ancient inhabitants of the land. Very little, however, can be gleaned from them respecting their early history. … The Tivitivas, mentioned by Raleigh, were probably a branch of the Waraus, whom he calls Quarawetes."

W. H. Brett, Indian Tribes of Guiana, part 2, chapter 13.




   Cat Nation, or Eries.

      See below: HURONS, &c.,

   Catawbas, or Kataba.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY;
      also, TIMUQUANAN.





   Chapas, or Chapanecs.

See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.


"The Cherokee tribe has long been a puzzling factor to students of ethnology and North American languages. Whether to be considered an abnormal offshoot from one of the well-known Indian stocks or families of North America, or the remnant of some undetermined or almost extinct family which has merged into another, appear to be questions yet unsettled."

      C. Thomas,
      Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the United States
      (Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-4)

Facts which tend to identify the Cherokees with the ancient "mound-builders" of the Ohio Valley—the Alleghans or Talligewi of Indian tradition—are set forth by Professor Thomas in a later paper, on the Problem of the Ohio Mounds, published by the Bureau of Ethnology in 1889 [see above: ALLEGHANS] and in a little book published in 1890, entitled "The Cherokees in Pre-Columbian Times." "The Cherokee nation has probably occupied a more prominent place in the affairs and history of what is now the United States of America, since the date of the early European settlements, than any other tribe, nation, or confederacy of Indians, unless it be possible to except the powerful and warlike league of the Iroquois or Six Nations of New York. It is almost certain that they were visited at a very early period [1540] following the discovery of the American continent by that daring and enthusiastic Spaniard, Fernando de Soto. … At the time of the English settlement of the Carolinas the Cherokees occupied a diversified and well-watered region of country of large extent upon the waters of the Catawba, Broad, Saluda, Keowee, Tugaloo, Savannah, and Coosa rivers on the east and south, and several tributaries of the Tennessee on the north and west. … In subsequent years, through frequent and long continued conflicts with the ever advancing white settlements, and the successive treaties whereby the Cherokees gradually yielded portions of their domain, the location and names of their towns were continually changing until the final removal of the nation [1836-1839] west of the Mississippi. … This removal turned the Cherokees back in the calendar of progress and civilization at least a quarter of a century. The hardships and exposures of the journey, coupled with the fevers and malaria of a radically different climate, cost the lives of perhaps 10 per cent. of their total population. The animosities and turbulence born of the treaty of 1835 not only occasioned the loss of many lives, but rendered property insecure, and in consequence diminished the zeal and industry of the entire community in its accumulation. A brief period of comparative quiet, however, was again characterized by an advance toward a higher civilization. Five years after their removal we find from the report of their agent that they are again on the increase in population. … With the exception of occasional drawbacks—the result of civil feuds—the progress of the nation in education, industry and civilization continued until the outbreak of the rebellion. At this period, from the best attainable information, the Cherokees numbered 21,000 souls. The events of the war brought to them more of desolation and ruin than perhaps to any other community. Raided and sacked alternately, not only by the Confederates and Union forces, but by the vindictive ferocity and hate of their own factional divisions, their country became a blackened and desolate waste. … The war over, and the work of reconstruction commenced, found them numbering 14,000 impoverished, heart-broken, and revengeful people. … To-day their country is more prosperous than ever. They number 22,000, a greater population than they have had at any previous period, except perhaps just prior to the date of the treaty of 1835, when those east added to those west of the Mississippi are stated to have aggregated nearly 25,000 people. To-day they have 2,300 scholars attending 75 schools, established and supported by themselves at an annual expense to the nation of nearly $100,000. To-day, 13,000 of their people can read and 18,000 can speak the English language. To-day, 5,000 brick, frame and log-houses are occupied by them, and they have 64 churches with a membership of several thousand. They cultivate 100,000 acres of land and have an additional 150,000 fenced. … They have a constitutional form of government predicated upon that of the United States. As a rule their laws are wise and beneficent and are enforced with strictness and justice. … The present Cherokee population is of a composite character. Remnants of other nations or tribes [Delawares, Shawnees, Creeks, Natchez] have from time to time been absorbed and admitted to full participation in the benefits of Cherokee citizenship."

C. C. Royce, The Cherokee Nation of Indians (Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-84).

This elaborate paper by Mr. Royce is a narrative in detail of the official relations of the Cherokees with the colonial and federal governments, from their first treaty with South Carolina, in 1721, down to the treaty of April 27, 1868.—"As early as 1798 Barton compared the Cheroki language with that of the Iroquois and stated his belief that there was a connection between them. … Mr. Hale was the first to give formal expression to his belief in the affinity of the Cheroki to Iroquois. Recently extensive Cheroki vocabularies have come into possession of the Bureau of Ethnology, and a careful comparison of them with ample Iroquois material has been made by Mr Hewitt. The result is convincing proof of the relationship of the two languages."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, page 77.

See Note, Appendix: E.

ALSO IN S. G. Drake, The Aboriginal Races of North America, book 4, chapter 13-16.

See, above: ALLEGHANS.

      See, also, for an account of the Cherokee War of 1759-1761,
      SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761; and for "Lord Dunmore's
      War," OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

   Cheyennes, or Sheyennes.




The most northerly group of the tribes of the Andes "are the Cundinamarca of the table lands of Bogota. At the time of the conquest the watershed of the Magdalena was occupied by the Chibcha, or, as they were called by the Spaniards, Muyscas. At that time the Chibcha were the most powerful of all the autochthonous tribes, had a long history behind them, were well advanced toward civilization, to which numerous antiquities bear witness. The Chibcha of to-day no longer speak the well-developed and musical language of their forefathers. It became extinct about 1730, and it can now only be inferred from existing dialects of it; these are the languages of the Turiero, a tribe dwelling north of Bogota, and of the Itoco Indians who live in the neighborhood of the celebrated Emerald mines of Muzo."

The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor) volume 6, page 215.

"As potters and goldsmiths they [the Chibcha] ranked among the finest on the continent."

D. G. Brinton, Races and Peoples, page 272.

See, also, COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.


      See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;
      also, LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.


See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

   Chimakuan Family.

"The Chimakum are said to have been formerly one of the largest and most powerful tribes of Puget Sound. Their warlike habits early tended to diminish their numbers, and when visited by Gibbs in 1854 they counted only about 70 individuals. This small remnant occupied some 15 small lodges on Port Townsend Bay."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 62.

   Chimarikan Family.

"According to Powers, this family was represented, so far as known, by two tribes in California, one the Chi-mál-a-kwe, living on New River, a branch of the Trinity, the other the Chimariko, residing upon the Trinity itself from Burnt Ranch up to the mouth of North Fork, California. The two tribes are said to have been as numerous formerly as the Hupa, by whom they were overcome and nearly exterminated. Upon the arrival of the Americans only 25 of the Chimalakwe were left."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 63.


See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

   Chinookan Family.

"The banks of the Columbia, from the Grand Dalles to its mouth, belong to the two branches of the Tsinuk [or Chinook] nation, which meet in the neighborhood of the Kowlitz River, and of which an almost nominal remnant is left. … The position of the Tsinuk previous to their depopulation was, as at once appears, most important, occupying both sides of the great artery of Oregon for a distance of 200 miles, they possessed the principal thoroughfare between the interior and the ocean, boundless resources of provisions of various kinds, and facilities for trade almost unequalled on the Pacific."

      G. Gibbs,
      Tribes of West Washington and N. W. Oregon
      (Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 1),
      page 164.

See, also, below: FLATHEADS.


      See below: OJIBWAS;
      and above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.





   Chontals and Popolocas.

"According to the census of 1880 there were 31,000 Indians in Mexico belonging to the Familia Chontal. No such family exists. The word 'chontalli' in the Nahuatl language means simply 'stranger,' and was applied by the Nahuas to any people other than their own. According to the Mexican statistics, the Chontals are found in the states of Mexico, Puebla, Oaxaca, Guerrero, Tabasco, Guatemala and Nicaragua. A similar term is 'popoloca,' which in Nahuatl means a coarse fellow, one speaking badly, that is, broken Nahuatl. The Popolocas have also been erected into an ethnic entity by some ethnographers, with as little justice as the Chontallis. They are stated to have lived in the provinces of Puebla, Oaxaca, Vera Cruz, Mechoacan and Guatemala."

D. G. Brinton, The American Race, pages 146-153.


See above: ANDESIANS.

   Chumashan Family.

"Derivation: From Chumash, the name of the Santa Rosa Islanders. The several dialects of this family have long been known under the group or family name, 'Santa Barbara,' which seems first to have been used in a comprehensive sense by Latham in 1856, who included under it three languages, viz.: Santa Barbara, Santa Inez, and San Luis Obispo. The term has no special pertinence as a family designation, except from the fact that the Santa Barbara Mission, around which one of the dialects of the family was spoken, is perhaps more widely known than any of the others."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 67.



   Coahuiltecan Family.

"Derivation: From the name of the Mexican State Coahuila. This family appears to have included numerous tribes in southwestern Texas and in Mexico. … A few Indians still survive who speak one of the dialects of this family, and in 1886 Mr. Gatschet collected vocabularies of two tribes, the Comecrudo and Cotoname, who live on the Rio Grande, at Las Prietas, State of Tamaulipas."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 68.

   Coajiro, or Guajira.

"An exceptional position is taken, in many respects, by the Coajiro, or Guajira, who live on the peninsula of the same name on the northwestern boundary of Venezuela. Bounded on all sides by so-called civilized peoples, this Indian tribe is known to have maintained its independence, and acquired the well-deserved reputation for cruelty, a tribe which, in many respects, can be classed with the Apaches and Comanches of New Mexico, the Araucanians of Chili, and the Guaycara and Guarani on the Parana. The Coajiro are mostly large, with chestnut-brown complexion and black, sleek hair. While all the other coast tribes have adopted the Spanish language, the Coajiro have preserved their own speech. They are the especial foes of the other peoples. No one is given entrance into their land, and they live with their neighbors, the Venezuelans, in constant hostilities. They have fine horses, which they know how to ride excellently. … They have numerous herds of cattle. … They follow agriculture a little."

The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor), volume 6, page 243.


See above: ANDESIANS.


See above: ANDESIANS.

   Coco Group.





See above: ANDESIANS.





      See below: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY,
      and KIOWAN FAMILY;
      and above: APACHE GROUP.




See above: ANDESIANS.



   Copehan Family.

"The territory of the Copehan family is bounded on the north by Mount Shasta and the territory of the Sastean and Lutuamian families, on the east by the territory of the Palaihnihan, Yanan, and Punjunan families, and on the south by the bays of San Pablo and Suisun and the lower waters of the Sacramento."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 69.

   Costanoan Family.

"Derivation: From the Spanish costano, 'coast-men.' Under this group name Latham included five tribes … which were under the supervision of the Mission Dolores. … The territory of the Costanoan family extends from the Golden Gate to a point near the southern end of Monterey Bay. … The surviving Indians of the once populous tribes of this family are now scattered over several counties and probably do not number, all told, over 30 individuals, as was ascertained by Mr. Henshaw in 1888. Most of these are to be found near the towns of Santa Cruz and Monterey."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 71.

   Creek Confederacy, Creek Wars.

      See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;
      also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL);
      and FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.




See AMERICA: A. D. 1587-1590.

   Crows (Upsarokas, or Absarokas).






   Cuyriri or Kiriri.

See below: GUCK on Coco GROUP.

   Dakotas, or Dacotahs, or Dahcotas.


   Delawares, or Lenape.

   "The proper name of the Delaware Indians was and is Lenapé (a
   as in father, é as a in mate). … The Lenape were divided
   into three sub-tribes:
      1. The Minsi, Monseys, Montheys, Munsees, or Minisinks.
      2. The Unami or Wonameys.
      3. The Unalachtigo.
   No explanation of these designations will be
   found in Heckewelder or the older writers. From
   investigations among living Delawares, carried out at my
   request by Mr. Horatio Hale, it is evident that they are
   wholly geographical, and refer to the location of these
   sub-tribes on the Delaware river. … The Minsi lived in the
   mountainous region at the head waters of the Delaware, above
   the Forks or junction of the Lehigh river. … The Unamis'
   territory on the right bank of the Delaware river extended
   from the Lehigh Valley southward. It was with them and their
   southern neighbors, the Unalachtigos, that Penn dealt for the
   land ceded to him in the Indian deed of 1682. The Minsis did
   not take part in the transaction, and it was not until 1737
   that the Colonial authorities treated directly with the latter
   for the cession of their territory. The Unalachtigo or Turkey
   totem had its principal seat on the affluents of the Delawares
   near where Wilmington now stands."

      D. G. Brinton,
      The Lenape and Their Legends,
      chapter 3.

   "At the … time when
   William Penn landed in Pennsylvania, the Delawares had been
   subjugated and made women by the Five Nations. It is well
   known that, according to that Indian mode of expression, the
   Delawares were henceforth prohibited from making war, and
   placed under the sovereignty of the conquerors, who did not
   even allow sales of land, in the actual possession of the
   Delawares, to be valid without their approbation. William
   Penn, his descendants, and the State of Pennsylvania,
   accordingly, always purchased the right of possession from the
   Delawares, and that of Sovereignty from the Five Nations. …
   The use of arms, though from very different causes, was
   equally prohibited to the Delawares and to the Quakers. Thus
   the colonization of Pennsylvania and of West New Jersey by the
   British, commenced under the most favorable auspices. Peace
   and the utmost harmony prevailed for more than sixty years
   between the whites and the Indians; for these were for the
   first time treated, not only justly, but kindly, by the
   colonists. But, however gradually and peaceably their lands
   might have been purchased, the Delawares found themselves at
   last in the same situation as all the other Indians, without
   lands of their own, and therefore without means of
   subsistence. They were compelled to seek refuge on the waters
   of the Susquehanna, as tenants at will, on lands belonging to
   their hated conquerors, the Five Nations. Even there and on
   the Juniata they were encroached upon. … Under those
   circumstances, many of the Delawares determined to remove west
   of the Alleghany Mountains, and, about the year 1740-50,
   obtained from their ancient allies and uncles, the Wyandots,
   the grant of a derelict tract of land lying principally on the
   Muskingum. The great body of the nation was still attached to
   Pennsylvania. But the grounds of complaint increased. The
   Delawares were encouraged by the western tribes, and by the
   French, to shake off the yoke of the Six Nations, and to join
   in the war against their allies, the British. The frontier
   settlements of Pennsylvania were accordingly attacked both by
   the Delawares and the Shawnoes. And, although peace was made
   with them at Easton in in 1758, and the conquest of Canada put
   an end to the general war, both the Shawnoes and Delawares
   removed altogether in 1768 beyond the Alleghany Mountains. …
   The years 1765-1795 are the true period of the power and
   importance of the Delawares. United with the Shawnoes, who
   were settled on the Scioto, they sustained during the Seven
   Years' War the declining power of France, and arrested for
   some years the progress of the British and American arms.
   Although a portion of the nation adhered to the Americans
   during the War of Independence, the main body, together with
   all the western nations made common cause with the British.
   And, after the short truce which followed the treaty of 1783,
   they were again at the head of the western confederacy in
   their last struggle for independence. Placed by their
   geographical situation in the front of battle, they were,
   during those three wars, the aggressors, and, to the last
   moment, the most active and formidable enemies of America. The
   decisive victory of General Wayne (1794), dissolved the
   confederacy; and the Delawares were the greatest sufferers by
   the treaty of Greenville of 1795."
   After this, the greater part of the Delawares were settled on
   White River, Indiana, "till the year 1819, when they finally
   ceded their claim to the United States. Those residing there
   were then reduced to about 800 souls. A number … had
   previously removed to Canada; and it is difficult to ascertain
   the situation or numbers of the residue at this time [1836].
   Those who have lately removed west of the Mississippi are, in
   an estimate of the War Department, computed at 400 souls.
   Former emigrations to that quarter had however taken place,
   and several small dispersed bands are, it is believed, united
   with the Senecas and some other tribes."

A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archæologia Americana, volume 2), introduction, section 2.

See, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY: below: SHAWANESE, and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY. Also, PONTIAC'S WAR; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768; and MORAVIAN BRETHREN; and, for an account of "Lord Dunmore's War," see Ohio (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.


      See below: HURONS, &c.,

   Eskimauan Family.

"Save a slight inter-mixture of European settlers, the Eskimo are the only inhabitants of the shores of Arctic America, and of both sides of Davis Strait and Baffin Bay, including Greenland, as well as a tract of about 400 miles on the Behring Strait coast of Asia. Southward they extend as far as about 50° North latitude on the eastern side, 60° on the western side of America, and from 55° to 60° on the shores of Hudson Bay. Only on the west the Eskimo near their frontier are interrupted on two small spots of the coast by the Indians, named Kennayans and Ugalenzes, who have there advanced to the sea-shore for the sake of fishing. These coasts of Arctic America, of course, also comprise all the surrounding islands. Of these, the Aleutian Islands form an exceptional group; the inhabitants of these on the one hand distinctly differing from the coast people here mentioned, while on the other they show a closer relationship to the Eskimo than any other nation. The Aleutians, therefore, may be considered as only an abnormal branch of the Eskimo nation. … As regards their northern limits, the Eskimo people, or at least remains of their habitations, have been found nearly as far north as any Arctic explorers have hitherto advanced: and very possibly bands of them may live still farther to the north, as yet quite unknown to us. … On comparing the Eskimo with the neighbouring nations, their physical complexion certainly seems to point at an Asiatic origin; but, as far as we know, the latest investigations have also shown a transitional link to exist between the Eskimo and the other American nations, which would sufficiently indicate the possibility of a common origin from the same continent. As to their mode of life, the Eskimo decidedly resemble their American neighbours. … With regard to their language, the Eskimo also appear akin to the American nations in regard to its decidedly polysynthetic structure. Here, however, on the other hand, we meet with some very remarkable similarities between the Eskimo idiom and the language of Siberia, belonging to the Altaic or Finnish group. … According to the Sagas of the Icelanders, they were already met with on the east coast of Greenland about the year 1000, and almost at the same time on the east coast of the American continent. … Between the years 1000 and 1300 they do not seem to have occupied the land south of 65° North L. on the west coast of Greenland, where the Scandinavian colonies were then situated. But the colonists seem to have been aware of their existence in higher latitudes, and to have lived in fear of an attack by them, since, in the year 1266, an expedition was sent out for the purpose of exploring the abodes of the Skrælings, as they were called by the colonists. … About the year 1450, the last accounts were received from the colonies, and the way to Greenland was entirely forgotten in the mother country. … The features of the natives in the Southern part of Greenland indicate a mixed descent from the Scandinavians and Eskimo, the former, however, not having left the slightest sign of any influence on the nationality or culture of the present natives. In the year 1585, Greenland was discovered anew by John Davis, and found inhabited exclusively by Eskimo."

H. Rink, Tales and Traditions of the Eskimo, introduction and chapter 6.

H. Rink, The Eskimo tribes.

"In 1869, I proposed for the Aleuts and people of Innuit stock collectively the term Orarians, as indicative of their coastwise distribution, and as supplying the need of a general term to designate a very well-defined race. …The Orarians are divided into two well-marked groups, namely the Innuits, comprising all the so-called Eskimo and Tuskis, and the Aleuts."

      W. H. Dall,
      Tribes of the Extreme Northwest
      (Contributed to North American Ethnology, volume 1),
      part 1.

   Esselenian Family.

"The present family was included by Latham in the heterogeneous group called by him Salinas. … The term Salinan [is now] restricted to the San Antonio and San Miguel languages, leaving the present family … [to be] called Esselenian, from the name of the single tribe Esselen, of which it is composed. … The tribe or tribes composing this family occupied a narrow strip of the California coast from Monterey Bay south to the vicinity of the Santa Lucia Mountain, a distance of about 50 miles."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, pages 75-76.



   Eurocs, or Yuroks.

See below: MODOCS, &c.

   Five Nations.


   Flatheads (Salishan Family).

See Note, Appendix E.

"The name Flathead was commonly given to the Choctaws, though, says Du Pratz, he saw no reason why they should be so distinguished, when the practice of flattening the head was so general. And in the enumeration just cited [Documentary Hist. of New York, volume 1, page 24] the next paragraph. … is: 'The Flatheads, Cherakis, Chicachas, and Totiris are included under the name of Flatheads by the Iroquois."

M. F. Force, Some Early Notices of the Indians of Ohio, page 32.

"The Salish … are distinctively known as Flatheads, though the custom of deforming the cranium is not confined to them."

D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 107.

"In … early times the hunters and trappers could not discover why the Blackfeet and Flatheads [of Montana] received their respective designations, for the feet of the former are no more inclined to sable than any other part of the body, while the heads of the latter possess their fair proportion of rotundity. Indeed it is only below the falls and rapids that real Flatheads appear, and at the mouth of the Columbia that they flourish most supernaturally. The tribes who practice the custom of flattening the head, and who lived at the mouth of the Columbia, differed little from each other in laws, manners or customs, and were composed of the Cathlamahs, Killmucks, Clatsops, Chinooks and Chilts. The abominable custom of flattening their heads prevails among them all."

      P. Ronan,
      Historical Sketch of the Flathead Indian Nation,
      page 17.

   In Major Powell's linguistic classification, the "Salishan
   Family" (Flathead) is given a distinct place.

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, page 102.


   Fox Indians.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      and below, SACS, &c.

   For an account of the massacre of Fox Indians at Detroit in

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1711-1713.

For an account of the Black Hawk War,

See Illinois: A. D. 1832.



   Gausarapos or Guuchies.


   Ges Tribes.

      See below:

   Gros Ventres (Minnetaree; Hidatsa).

      See Note, Appendix E.
      See below: HIDATSA;
      also, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.




See above: COAJIRO.




See below: TUPI.



   Guck or Coco Group.

An extensive linguistic group of tribes in Brazil, on and north of the Amazon, extending as far as the Orinoco, has been called the Guck, or Coco group. "There is no common name for the group, that here used meaning a father's brother, a very important personage in these tribes. The Guck group embraces a large number of tribes. … We need enumerate but few. The Cuyriri or Kiriri (also known as Sabaja, Pimenteiras, etc.), number about 3,000. Some of them are half civilized, some are wild, and, without restraint, wander about, especially in the mountains in the Province of Pernambuco. The Araicu live on the lower Amazon and the Tocantins. Next come the Manaos, who have a prospect of maintaining themselves longer than most tribes. With them is connected the legend of the golden lord who washed the gold dust from his limbs in a lake [see EL DORADO]. … The Uirina, Baré, and Cariay live on the Rio Negro, the Cunimaré on the Jurua, the Maranha on the Jutay. Whether the Chamicoco on the right bank of the Paraguay, belong to the Guck is uncertain. Among the tribes which, though very much mixed, are still to be enumerated with the Guck, are the Tecuna and the Passé. In language the Tecunas show many similarities to the Ges; they live on the western borders of Brazil, and extend in Equador to the Pastaça. Among them occur peculiar masques which strongly recall those found on the northwest coast of North America. … In the same district belong the Uaupe, who are noticeable from the fact that they live in barracks, indeed the only tribe in South America in which this custom appears. The communistic houses of the Uaupe are called 'malloca;' they are buildings of about 120 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 30 high, in which live a band of about 100 persons in 12 families, each of the latter, however, in its own room. … Finally, complex tribes of the most different nationality are comprehended under names which indicate only a common way of life, but are also incorrectly used as ethnographic names. These are Caripuna, Mura, and Miranha, all of whom live in the neighborhood of the Madeira River. Of the Caripuna or Jaûn-Avô (both terms signify 'watermen'), who are mixed with Quichua blood, it is related that they not only ate human flesh, but even cured it for preservation. … Formerly the Mura … were greatly feared; this once powerful and populous tribe, however, was almost entirely destroyed at the end of the last century by the Mundruco; the remnant is scattered. … The Mura are the gypsies among the Indians on the Amazon; and by all the other tribes they are regarded with a certain degree of contempt as pariahs. … Much to be feared, even among the Indians, are also the Miranha (i. e., rovers, vagabonds), a still populous tribe on the right bank of the Japura, who seem to know nothing but war, robbery, murder, and man-hunting."

The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor), volume 6, pages 245-248.

ALSO IN F. Keller, The Amazon and Madeira Rivers, chapters 2 and 6.

H. W. Bates, A Naturalist on the River Amazons, chapters 7-13.







   Hidatsa, or Minnetaree, or Grosventres

See Note, Appendix E.

"The Hidatsa, Minnetaree, or Grosventre Indians, are one of the three tribes which at present inhabit the permanent village at Fort Berthold, Dakota Territory, and hunt on the waters of the Upper Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers, in Northwestern Dakota and Eastern Montana. The history of this tribe is … intimately connected with that of the politically allied tribes of the Aricarees and Mandans." The name, Grosventres, was given to the people of this tribe "by the early French and Canadian adventurers. The same name was applied also to a tribe, totally distinct from these in language and origin, which lives some hundreds of miles west of Fort Berthold; and the two nations are now distinguished from one another as Grosventres of the Missouri and Grosventres of the Prairie. … Edward Umfreville, who traded on the Saskatchewan River from 1784 to 1787, … remarks: … 'They [the Canadian French] call them Grosventres, or Big-Bellies; and without any reason, as they are as comely and as well made as any tribe whatever.' … In the works of many travellers they are called Minnetarees, a name which is spelled in various ways. … This, although a Hidatsa word, is the name applied to them, not by themselves, but by the Mandans; it signifies 'to cross the water,' or 'they crossed the water.' … Hidatsa was the name of the village on Knife River farthest from the Missouri, the village of those whom Lewis and Clarke considered the Minnetarees proper." It is the name "now generally used by this people to designate themselves."

W. Matthews, Ethnography and Philology of the Hidatsa Indians, parts 1-2 (United States Geological and Geographical Survey. F. V. Hayden, Mis. Pub., No. 7).

See also, below: SIOUAN FAMILY.





North of the Mohegans, who occupied the east bank of the Hudson River opposite Albany, and covering the present counties of Columbia and Rensselaer, dwelt the Algonkin tribe of Horikans, "whose hunting grounds appear to have extended from the waters of the Connecticut, across the Green Mountains, to the borders of that beautiful lake [named Lake George by the too loyal Sir William Johnson] which might now well bear their sonorous name."

J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of New York, page 77.


See above: ANDESIANS.




See below: MAYAS.

   Huecos, or Wacos.


   Humas, or Oumas.



      See Note, Appendix E.
      See below: MODOCS, &c.

   Hurons, or Wyandots.
   Neutral Nation.

"The peninsula between the Lakes Huron, Erie, and Ontario was occupied by two distinct peoples, speaking dialects of the Iroquois tongue. The Hurons or Wyandots, including the tribe called by the French the Dionondadies, or Tobacco Nation, dwelt among the forests which bordered the eastern shores of the fresh water sea to which they have left their name; while the Neutral Nation, so called from their neutrality in the war between the Hurons and the Five Nations, inhabited the northern shores of Lake Erie, and even extended their eastern flank across the strait of Niagara. The population of the Hurons has been variously stated at from 10,000 to 30,000 souls, but probably did not exceed the former estimate. The Franciscans and the Jesuits were early among them, and from their descriptions it is apparent that, in legends, and superstitions, manners and habits, religious observances and social customs, they were closely assimilated to their brethren of the Five Nations. … Like the Five Nations, the Wyandots were in some measure an agricultural people; they bartered the surplus products of their maize fields to surrounding tribes, usually receiving fish in exchange; and this traffic was so considerable that the Jesuits styled their country the Granary of the Algonquins. Their prosperity was rudely broken by the hostilities of the Five Nations; for though the conflicting parties were not ill matched in point of numbers, yet the united counsels and ferocious energies of the confederacy swept all before them. In the year 1649, in the depth of winter, their warriors invaded the country of the Wyandots, stormed their largest villages, and involved all within in indiscriminate slaughter. The survivors fled in panic terror, and the whole nation was broken and dispersed. Some found refuge among the French of Canada, where, at the village of Lorette, near Quebec, their descendants still remain; others were incorporated with their conquerors, while others again fled northward, beyond Lake Superior, and sought an asylum among the wastes which bordered on the north-eastern lands of the Dahcotah. Driven back by those fierce bison-hunters, they next established themselves about the outlet of Lake Superior, and the shores and islands in the northern parts of Lake Huron. Thence, about the year 1680, they descended to Detroit, where they formed a permanent settlement, and where, by their superior valor, capacity and address, they soon acquired an ascendancy over the surrounding Algonquins. The ruin of the Neutral Nation followed close on that of the Wyandots, to whom, according to Jesuit authority, they bore an exact resemblance in character and manners. The Senecas soon found means to pick a quarrel with them; they were assailed by all the strength of the insatiable confederacy, and within a few years their destruction as a nation was complete."

F. Parkman, The Conspiracy of Pontiac, chapter 1.

F. Parkman, The Jesuits in North America, chapter 1.

"The first in this locality [namely, the western extremity of the State of New York, on and around the site of the city of Buffalo], of whom history makes mention, were the Attiouandaronk, or Neutral Nation, called Kah-kwas by the Senecas. They had their council-fires along the Niagara, but principally on its western side. Their hunting grounds extended from the Genesee nearly to the eastern shores of Lake Huron, embracing a wide and important territory. … They are first mentioned by Champlain during his winter visit to the Hurons in 1615 … but he was unable to visit their territory. … The peace which this peculiar people had so long maintained with the Iroquois was destined to be broken. Some jealousies and collisions occurred in 1647, which culminated in open war in 1650. One of the villages of the Neutral Nation, nearest the Senecas and not far from the site of our city [Buffalo], was captured in the autumn of the latter year, and another the ensuing spring. So well-directed and energetic were the blows of the Iroquois, that the total destruction of the Neutral Nation was speedily accomplished. … The survivors were adopted by their conquerors. …. A long period intervened between the destruction of the Neutral Nation and the permanent occupation of their country by the Senecas,"—which latter event occurred after the expulsion of the Senecas from the Genesee Valley, by the expedition under General Sullivan, in 1779, during the Revolutionary War. "They never, as a nation, resumed their ancient seats along the Genesee, but sought and found a new home on the secluded banks and among the basswood forests of the Dó-syo-wa, or Buffalo Creek, whence they had driven the Neutral Nation 130 years before. … It has been assumed by many writers that the Kah-kwas and Eries were identical. This is not so. The latter, according to the most reliable authorities, lived south of the western extremity of Lake Erie until they were destroyed by the Iroquois in 1655. The Kah-kwas were exterminated by them as early as 1651. On Coronelli's map, published in 1688, one of the villages of the latter, called 'Kahouagoga, a destroyed nation,' is located at or near the site of Buffalo."

O. H. Marshall, The Niagara Frontier, pages 5-8, and foot-note.

"Westward of the Neutrals, along the Southeastern shores of Lake Erie, and stretching as far east as the Genesee river, lay the country of the Eries, or, as they were denominated by the Jesuits, 'La Nation Chat,' or Cat Nation, who were also a member of the Huron-Iroquois family. The name of the beautiful lake on whose margin our city [Buffalo] was cradled is their most enduring monument, as Lake Huron is that of the generic stock. They were called the Cat Nation either because that interesting but mischievous animal, the raccoon, which the holy fathers erroneously classed in the feline gens, was the totem of their leading clan, or sept, or in consequence of the abundance of that mammal within their territory."

      W. C. Bryant,
      Interesting Archaeological Studies in and about Buffalo,
      page 12.


Mr. Schoolcraft either identifies or confuses the Eries and the Neutral Nation.

      H. R. Schoolcraft,
      Sketch of the History of the Ancient Eries
      (Information Respecting the Indian Tribes,
      part 4. page 197).

      ALSO IN
      J. G. Shea,
      Inquiries Respecting the lost Neutral Nation
      (same, part 4, page 204).

      D. Wilson,
      The Huron-Iroquois of Canada
      (Transactions Royal Society of Canada, 1884)

      P. D. Clarke,
      Origin and Traditional History of the Wyandottes.

      W. Ketchum,
      History of Buffalo,
      volume 1, chapter 1-2

N. B. Craig. The Olden Time, volume 1, page 225.


Also, CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1608-1611; 1611-1616; 1634-1652; 1640-1700.

See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR.

For an account of "Lord Dunmore's War,"

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

   Illinois and Miamis.

   "Passing the country of the Lenape and the Shawanoes, and
   descending the Ohio, the traveller would have found its valley
   chiefly occupied by two nations, the Miamis or Twightwees, on
   the Wabash and its branches, and the Illinois, who dwelt in
   the neighborhood of the river to which they have given their
   name, while portions of them extended beyond the Mississippi.
   Though never subjugated, as were the Lenape, both the Miamis
   and the Illinois were reduced to the last extremity by the
   repeated attacks of the Five Nations; and the Illinois, in
   particular, suffered so much by these and other wars, that the
   population of ten or twelve thousand, ascribed to them by the
   early French writers, had dwindled, during the first quarter
   of the eighteenth century,
   to a few small villages."

      F. Parkman,
      Conspiracy of Pontiac,
      chapter 1.

      See, also, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      and below: SACS, &c.;
      also CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1669-1687.

   Incas, or Yncas.



See above: ESKIMAUAN.



   Iroquois Confederacy.
   Iroquoian Family.

"At the outset of the 16th Century, when the five tribes or nations of the Iroquois confederacy first became known to European explorers, they were found occupying the valleys and uplands of northern New York, in that picturesque and fruitful region which stretches westward from the head-waters of the Hudson to the Genesee. The Mohawks, or Caniengas—as they should properly be called—possessed the Mohawk River, and covered Lake George and Lake Champlain with their flotillas of large canoes, managed with the boldness and skill which, hereditary in their descendants, make them still the best boatmen of the North American rivers. West of the Caniengas the Oneidas held the small river and lake which bear their name. … West of the Oneidas, the imperious Onondagas, the central and, in some respects, the ruling nation of the League, possessed the two lakes of Onondaga and Skaneateles. together with the common outlet of this inland lake system, the Oswego River to its issue into Lake Ontario. Still proceeding westward, the lines of trail and river led to the long and winding stretch of Lake Cayuga, about which were clustered the towns of the people who gave their name to the lake; and beyond them, over the wide expanse of hills and dales surrounding Lakes Seneca and Canandaigua, were scattered the populous villages of the Senecas, more correctly called Sonontowanas, or Mountaineers. Such were the names and abodes of the allied nations, members of the far-famed Kanonsionni, or League of United Households, who were destined to become for a time the most notable and powerful community among the native tribes of North America. The region which has been described was not, however, the original seat of those nations. They belonged to that linguistic family which is known to ethnologists as the Huron-Iroquois stock. This stock comprised the Hurons or Wyandots, the Attiwandaronks or Neutral Nation, the Iroquois, the Eries, the Andastes or Conestogas, the Tuscaroras and some smaller bands. The tribes of this family occupied a long irregular area of inland territory, stretching from Canada to North Carolina. The northern nations were all clustered about the great lakes; the southern bands held the fertile valleys bordering the head-waters of the rivers which flowed from the Allegheny mountains. The languages of all these tribes showed a close affinity. … The evidence of language, so far as it has yet been examined, seems to show that the Huron clans were the older members of the group; and the clear and positive traditions of all the surviving tribes, Hurons, Iroquois, and Tuscarora, point to the lower St. Lawrence as the earliest known abode of their stock. Here the first explorer, Cartier, found Indians of this stock at Hochelaga and Stadaconé, now the sites of Montreal and Quebec. … As their numbers increased, dissensions arose. The hive swarmed, and band after band moved off to the west and south. As they spread they encountered people of other stocks, with whom they had frequent wars. Their most constant and most dreaded enemies were the tribes of the Algonkin family, a fierce and restless people, of northern origin, who everywhere surrounded them. At one period, however, if the concurrent traditions of both Iroquois and Algonkins can be believed, these contending races for a time stayed their strife, and united their forces in an alliance against a common and formidable foe. This foe was the nation, or perhaps the confederacy, of the Alligewi or Talligewi, the semi-civilized 'Mound-builders' of the Ohio Valley, who have left their name to the Allegheny river and mountains, and whose vast earthworks are still, after half-a-century of study, the perplexity of archæologists. A desperate warfare ensued, which lasted about a hundred years, and ended in the complete overthrow and destruction, or expulsion, of the Alligewi. The survivors of the conquered people fled southward. … The time which has elapsed since the overthrow of the Alligewi is variously estimated. The most probable conjecture places it at a period about a thousand years before the present day. It was apparently soon after their expulsion that the tribes of the Huron-Iroquois and the Algonkin stocks scattered themselves over the wide region south of the Great Lakes, thus left open to their occupancy."

H. Hale, Introduction to Iroquois Book of Rites.


After the coming of the Europeans into the New World, the French were the first to be involved in hostilities with the Iroquois, and their early wars with them produced a hatred which could never be extinguished. Hence the English were able to win the alliance of the Five Nations, when they struggled with France for the mastery of the North American continent, and they owed their victory to that alliance, probably, more than to any other single cause. England still retained the faithful friendship and alliance of the Iroquois when she came to a struggle with her own colonies, and all the tribes except the Oneidas were in arms against the Americans in the Revolutionary War. "With the restoration of peace, the political transaction of the League were substantially closed. This was, in effect, the termination of their political existence. The jurisdiction of the United States was extended over their ancient territories, and from that time forth they became dependent nations. During the progress of the Revolution, the Mohawks abandoned their country and removed to Canada, finally establishing themselves partly upon Grand River, in the Niagara peninsula, and partly near Kingston, where they now reside upon two reservations secured to them by the British government. … The policy of the State of New York [toward the Iroquois nations] was ever just and humane. Although their country, with the exception of that of the Oneidas, might have been considered as forfeited by the event of the Revolution, yet the government never enforced the rights of conquest, but extinguished the Indian title to the country by purchase, and treaty stipulations. A portion of the Oneida nation [who had sold their lands to the State, from time to time, excepting one small reservation] emigrated to a reservation on the river Thames in Canada, where about 400 of them now [1851] reside. Another and a larger band removed to Green Bay, in Wisconsin, where they still make their homes to the number of 700. But a small part of the nation have remained around the seat of their ancient council-fire … near Oneida Castle, in the county of Oneida." The Onondagas "still retain their beautiful and secluded valley of Onondaga, with sufficient territory for their comfortable maintenance. About 150 Onondagas now reside with the Senecas; another party are established on Grand River, in Canada, and a few have removed to the west. … In the brief space of twelve years after the first house of the white man was erected in Cayuga county (1789) the whole nation [of the Cayugas] was uprooted and gone. In 1795, they ceded, by treaty, all their lands to the State, with the exception of one reservation, which they finally abandoned about the year 1800. A portion of them removed to Green Bay, another to Grand River, and still another, and a much larger band, settled at Sandusky, in Ohio, from whence they were removed by government, a few years since, into the Indian territory, west of the Mississippi. About 120 still reside among the Senecas, in western New York. … The Tuscaroras, after removing from the Oneida territory, finally located near the Niagara river, in the vicinity of Lewiston, on a tract given to them by the Senecas. … The residue of the Senecas are now shut up within three small reservations, the Tonawanda, the Cattaraugus and the Allegany, which, united, would not cover the area of one of the lesser counties of the State."

L. H. Morgan, The League of the Iroquois, book 1, chapter 1.

"The Indians of the State of New York number about 5,000, and occupy lands to the estimated extent of 87,()77 acres. With few exceptions, these people are the direct descendants of the native Indians, who once possessed and controlled the soil of the entire State."

      Report of Special Committee to Investigate the Indian
      Problem of the State of New York 1889.

      H. R. Schoolcraft,
      Notes on the Iroquois.

F. Parkman, The Conspiracy of Pontiac, chapter 1.

C. Colden, History of the Five Indian Nations.

      J. Fiske,
      Discovery of America,
      chapter 1.

   In 1715 the Five Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy became
   Six Nations, by the admission of the Tuscaroras, from North


On the relationship between the Iroquois and the Cherokees,

See above: CHEROKEES.

   Iroquois Confederacy.
   Their Name.

"The origin and proper meaning of the word Iroquois are doubtful. All that can be said with certainty is that the explanation given by Charlevoix cannot possibly be correct. The name of Iroquois, he says, is purely French, and has been formed from the term 'hiro,' 'I have spoken,' a word by which these Indians close all their speeches, and 'kouê,' which, when long drawn out, is a cry of sorrow, and when briefly uttered is an exclamation of joy. … But … Champlain had learned the name from his Indian allies before he or any other Frenchman, so far as is known, had ever seen an Iroquois. It is probable that the origin of the word is to be sought in the Huron language; yet, as this is similar to the Iroquois tongue, an attempt may be made to find a solution in the latter. According to Bruyas, the word 'garokwa' meant a pipe, and also a piece of tobacco,—and, in its verbal form, to smoke. This word is found, somewhat disguised by aspirates, in the Book of Rites,—denighroghkwayen,—'let us two smoke together.' … In the indeterminate form the verb becomes 'ierokwa,' which is certainly very near to Iroquois. It might be rendered 'they who smoke,' or 'they who use tobacco,' or, briefly, 'the Tobacco People.' This name, the Tobacco Nation ('Nation du Petun') was given by the French, and probably also by the Algonkins, to one of the Huron tribes, the Tionontates, noted for the excellent tobacco which they raised and sold. The Iroquois were equally well known for their cultivation of this plant, of which they had a choice variety."

H. Hale, Iroquois Book of Rites, appendix, note A.

Iroquois Confederacy.
   Their conquests and wide dominion.

   "The project of a League [among the 'Five Nations' of the
   Iroquois] originated with the Onondagas, among whom it was
   first suggested, as a means to enable them more effectually to
   resist the pressure of contiguous nations. The epoch of its
   establishment cannot now be decisively ascertained; although
   the circumstances attending its formation are still preserved
   by tradition with great minuteness. These traditions all refer
   to the northern shore of the Onondaga lake, as the place where
   the Iroquois chiefs assembled in general congress, to agree
   upon the terms and principles of the compact. … After the
   formation of the League, the Iroquois rose rapidly in power
   and influence. … With the first consciousness of rising
   power, they turned their long-cherished resentment upon the
   Adirondacks, who had oppressed them in their infancy as a
   nation, and had expelled them from their country, in the first
   struggle for the ascendancy.
   … At the era of French discovery (1535), the latter nation
   [the Adirondacks] appear to have been dispossessed of their
   original country, and driven down the St. Lawrence as far as
   Quebec. … A new era commenced with the Iroquois upon the
   establishment of the Dutch trading-post at Orange, now Albany,
   in 1615. … Friendly relations were established between the
   Iroquois and the Dutch, which continued without interruption
   until the latter surrendered their possessions upon the Hudson
   to the English in 1664. During this period a trade sprang up
   between them in furs, which the Iroquois exchanged for
   European fabrics, but more especially for fire-arms, in the
   use of which they were afterwards destined to become so
   expert. The English, in turn, cultivated the same relations of
   friendship. … With the possession of fire-arms commenced not
   only the rapid elevation, but absolute supremacy of the
   Iroquois over other Indian nations. In 1643, they expelled the
   Neuter Nation from the Niagara peninsula and established a
   permanent settlement at the mouth of that river. They nearly
   exterminated, in 1653, the Eries, who occupied the south side
   of Lake Erie, and from thence east to the Genesee, and thus
   possessed themselves of the whole area of western New York,
   and the northern part of Ohio. About the year 1670, after they
   had finally completed the dispersion and subjugation of the
   Adirondacks and Hurons, they acquired possession of the whole
   country between lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario, and of the
   north bank of the St. Lawrence, to the mouth of the Ottawa
   river, near Montreal. … They also made constant inroads upon
   the New England Indians. … In 1680, the Senecas with 600
   warriors invaded the country of the Illinois, upon the borders
   of the Mississippi, while La Salle was among the latter. …
   At various times, both before and after this period, the
   Iroquois turned their warfare against the Cherokees upon the
   Tennessee, and the Catawbas in South Carolina. … For about a
   century, from the year 1600 to the year 1700, the Iroquois
   were involved in an almost uninterrupted warfare. At the close
   of this period, they had subdued and held in nominal
   subjection all the principal Indian nations occupying the
   territories which are now embraced in the states of New York,
   Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, the northern and
   western parts of Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Northern Tennessee,
   Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, a portion of the New England
   States, and the principal part of Upper Canada. Over these
   nations, the haughty and imperious Iroquois exercised a
   constant supervision. If any of them became involved in
   domestic difficulties, a delegation of chiefs went among them
   and restored tranquillity, prescribing at the same time their
   future conduct."

L. H. Morgan, League of the Iroquois, book 1, chapter 1.

"Their [the Iroquois's] war-parties roamed over half America, and their name was a terror from the Atlantic to the Mississippi; but when we ask the numerical strength of the dreaded confederacy, when we discover that, in the days of their greatest triumphs, their united cantons could not have mustered 4,000 warriors, we stand amazed at the folly and dissension which left so vast a region the prey of a handful of bold marauders. Of the cities and villages now so thickly scattered over the lost domain of the Iroquois, a single one might boast a more numerous population than all the five united tribes."

      F. Parkman,
      The Conspiracy of Pontiac,
      chapter 1.

   Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1608-1700.
   Their wars with the French.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1608-1611; 1611-1616;
      1634-1652; 1640-1700; 1696.

   Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1648-1649.
   Their destruction of the Hurons and the Jesuit Missions.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1634-1652;
      also, above, HURONS.

   Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1684-1744.
   Surrenders and conveyances to the English.

      NEW YORK: A. D. 1684, and 1726;
      VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754;
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

   Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1778-1779.
   Their part in the War of the American Revolution.

      and (JULY); and 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

   Iroquois Tribes of the South.

See Note, Appendix E.

   "The southern Iroquois tribes occupied Chowan River and its
   tributary streams. They were bounded on the east by the most
   southerly Lenape tribes, who were in possession of the low
   country along the sea shores, and those of Albemarle and
   Pamlico Sounds. Towards the south and the west they extended
   beyond the river Neuse. They appear to have been known in
   Virginia, in early times, under the name of Monacans, as far
   north as James River. … Lawson, in his account of the North
   Carolina Indians, enumerates the Chowans, the Meherrins, and
   the Nottoways, as having together 95 warriors in the year
   1708. But the Meherrins or Tuteloes and the Nottoways
   inhabited respectively the two rivers of that name, and were
   principally seated in Virginia. We have but indistinct notices
   of the Tuteloes. … It appears by Beverly that the Nottoways
   had preserved their independence and their numbers later than
   the Powhatans, and that, at the end of the 17th century, they
   had still 130 warriors. They do not appear to have migrated
   from their original seats in a body. In the year 1820, they
   are said to have been reduced to 27 souls, and were still in
   possession of 7,000 acres in Southampton county, Virginia,
   which had been at an early date reserved for them. … The
   Tuscaroras were by far the most powerful nation in North
   Carolina, and occupied all the residue of the territory in
   that colony, which has been described as inhabited by Iroquois
   tribes. Their principal seats in 1708 were on the Neuse and
   the Taw or Tar rivers, and according to Lawson they had 1,200
   warriors in fifteen towns." In 1711 the Tuscaroras attacked
   the English colonists, massacring 130 in a single day, and a
   fierce war ensued. "In the autumn of 1712. all the inhabitants
   south and southwest of Chowan River were obliged to live in
   forts; and the Tuscaroras expected assistance from the Five
   Nations. This could not have been given without involving the
   confederacy in a war with Great Britain; and the Tuscaroras
   were left to their own resources. A force, consisting chiefly
   of southern Indians under the command of Colonel Moore, was
   again sent by the government of South Carolina to assist the
   northern Colonies. He besieged and took a fort of the
   Tuscaroras. … Of 800 prisoners 600 were given up to the
   Southern Indians, who carried them to South Carolina to sell
   them as slaves.
   The Eastern Tuscaroras, whose principal town was on
   the Taw, twenty miles above Washington, immediately made
   peace, and a portion was settled a few years after north of
   the Roanoke, near Windsor, where they continued till the year
   1803. But the great body of the nation removed in 1714-15 to
   the Five Nations, was received as the Sixth, and has since
   shared their fate."

      A. Gallatin,
      Synopsis of the Indian Tribes
      (Archæologia Americana, volume 2),
      introduction, section 2.

ALSO IN J. W. Moore, History of North Carolina, volume 1, chapter 3.



See above: CHIBCHAS.

   Itonamos, or Itonomos.

      See above: ANDESIANS;

   Jivara, or Jivaro.

See above: ANDESIANS.


See above: HURONS, &c.

   Kalapooian Family.

"Under this family name Scouler places two tribes, the Kalapooian, inhabiting 'the fertile Willamat plains' and the Yamkallie, who live 'more in the interior, towards the sources of the Willamat River.'… The tribes of the Kalapooian family inhabited the valley of Willamette River, Oregon, above the falls."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 81.

   Kanawhas, or Ganawese.


   Kansas, or Kaws.

See below: SIOUAN.



   Karankawan Family.

"The Karankawa formerly dwelt upon the Texan coast, according to Sibley, upon an island or peninsula in the Bay of St. Bernard (Matagorda Bay). … In 1884 Mr. Gatschet found a Tonkawe at Fort Griffin, Texas, who claimed to have formerly lived among the Karankawa. From him a vocabulary of twenty-five terms was obtained, which was all of the language he remembered. The vocabulary … such as it is, represents all of the language that is extant. Judged by this vocabulary the language seems to be distinct not only from the Attakapa but from all others."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 82.

   Karoks, or Cahrocs.

See below: MODOCS.



   Kaus, or Kwokwoos.

See below: KUSAN FAMILY.

   Kaws, or Kansas.

See below: SIOUAN.

   Kenai, or Blood Indians.

See above: BLACKFEET.

See Note, Appendix E.

   Keresan Family.

"The … pueblos of Keresan stock … are situated in New Mexico on the upper Rio Grande, on several of its small western affluents, and on the Jemez and San Jose, which also are tributaries of the Rio Grande."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 83.



      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      and below: SACS, &c., and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

   Kiowan Family.

"Derivation: From the Kiowa word Kó-i, plural Kó-igu, meaning 'Káyowe man.' The Comanche term Káyowe means 'rat.' The author who first formally separated this family appears to have been Turner. … Turner, upon the strength of a vocabulary furnished by Lieutenant Whipple, dissents from the opinion expressed by Pike and others to the effect that the language is of the same stock as the Comanche, and, while admitting that its relationship to Comanche is greater than to any other family, thinks that the likeness is merely the result of long intercommunication. His opinion that it is entirely distinct from any other language has been indorsed by Buschmann and other authorities. The family is represented by the Kiowa tribe. So intimately associated with the Comanches have the Kiowa been since known to history that it is not easy to determine their pristine home. … Pope definitely locates the Kiowa in the valley of the Upper Arkansas, and of its tributary, the Purgatory (Las Animas) River. This is in substantial accord with the statements of other writers of about the same period. Schermerhorn (1812) places the Kiowa on the heads of the Arkansas and Platte. Earlier still they appear upon the headwaters of the Platte."-

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 84.

   Kiriri, Cuyriri.


   Kitunahan Family.

   "This family was based upon a tribe variously termed Kitunaha,
   Kutenay, Cootenai, or Flatbow, living on the Kootenay River,
   a branch of the Columbia in Oregon."

      J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 85.


See below: MODOCS.

   Koluschan Family.

"Derivation: From the Aleut word kolosh, or more properly, kaluga, meaning 'dish,' the allusion being to the dishshaped lip ornaments. This family was based by Gallatin upon the Koluschen tribe (the Tshinkitani of Marchand), 'who inhabit the islands and the [Pacific] coast from the 60th to the 55th degree of north latitude.'"

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 86.

   Kulanapan Family.

   "The main territory of the Kulanapan family is bounded on the
   west by the Pacific Ocean, on the east by the Yukian and
   Copohan territories, on the north by the watershed of the
   Russian River, and on the south by a line drawn from Bodega
   Head to the southwest corner of the Yukian territory, near
   Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California."

      J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 88.

   Kusan Family:

   "The 'Kaus or Kwokwoos' tribe is merely mentioned by Hale as
   living on a river of the same name between the Umqua and the

      J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 89.

See Note, Appendix E.


See above: KUSAN FAMILY.


See above: DELAWARES.







   Mandans, or Mandanes.



      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      and, also, MANHATTAN ISLAND.

   Manioto, or Mayno.

See above: ANDESIANS.


See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.


See above: GUCK OR Coco GROUP.


See below: PUEBLOS.


   Mariposan Family.

"Derivation: A Spanish word meaning 'butterfly,' applied to a county in California and subsequently taken for the family name. Latham mentions the remnants of three distinct bands of the Coconoon, each with its own language, in the north of Mariposa County. These are classed together under the above name. More recently the tribes speaking languages allied to the Coconun have been treated of under the family name Yokut. As, however, the stock was established by Latham on a sound basis, his name is here restored."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 90.

   Mascoutins, or Mascontens.

See below: SACS, &c.






"In his second voyage, Columbus heard vague rumors of a mainland westward from Jamaica and Cuba, at a distance of ten days' journey in a canoe. … During his fourth voyage (1503-4), when he was exploring the Gulf southwest from Cuba, he picked up a canoe laden with cotton clothing variously dyed. The natives in it gave him to understand that they were merchants, and came from a land called Maia. This is the first mention in history of the territory now called Yucatan, and of the race of the Mayas; for although a province of similar name was found in the western extremity of the island of Cuba, the similarity was accidental, as the evidence is conclusive that no colony of the Mayas was found on the Antilles. … Maya was the patrial name of the natives of Yucatan. It was the proper name of the northern portion of the peninsula. No single province bore it at the date of the Conquest, and probably it had been handed down as a generic term from the period, about a century before, when this whole district was united under one government. … Whatever the primitive meaning and first application of the name Maya, it is now used to signify specifically the aborigines of Yucatan. In a more extended sense, in the expression 'the Maya family,' it is understood to embrace all tribes, wherever found, who speak related dialects presumably derived from the same ancient stock as the Maya proper. … The total number of Indians of pure blood speaking the Maya proper may be estimated as nearly or quite 200,000, most of them in the political limits of the department of Yucatan; to these should be added nearly 100,000 of mixed blood, or of European descent, who use the tongue in daily life. For it forms one of the rare examples of American languages possessing vitality enough not only to maintain its ground, but actually to force itself on European settlers and supplant their native speech. … The Mayas did not claim to be autochthones. Their legends referred to their arrival by the sea from the East, in remote times, under the leadership of Itzamna, their hero-god, and also to a less numerous immigration from the West, which was connected with the history of another hero-god, Kukul Càn. The first of these appears to be wholly mythical. … The second tradition deserves more attention from the historian. … It cannot be denied that the Mayas, the Kiches [or Quiches] and the Cakchiquels, in their most venerable traditions, claimed to have migrated from the north or west from some part of the present country of Mexico. These traditions receive additional importance from the presence on the shores of the Mexican Gulf, on the waters of the river Panuco, north of Vera Cruz, of a prominent branch of the Maya family, the Huastecs. The idea suggests itself that these were the rear-guard of a great migration of the Maya family from the north toward the south. Support is given to this by their dialect, which is most closely akin to that of the Tzendals of Tabasco, the nearest Maya race to the south of them, and also by very ancient traditions of the Aztecs. It is noteworthy that these two partially civilized races, the Mayas and the Aztecs, though differing radically in language, had legends which claimed a community of origin in some indefinitely remote past. We find these on the Maya side narrated in the sacred book of the Kiches, the Popol Vuh, in the Cakchiquel 'Records of Tecpan Atillan,' and in various pure Maya sources. … The annals of the Aztecs contain frequent allusions to the Huastecs."

D. G. Brinton, The Maya Chronicles, introduction.

"Closely enveloped in the dense forests of Chiapas, Gautemala, Yucatan, and Honduras, the ruins of several ancient cities have been discovered, which are far superior in extent and magnificence to any seen in Aztec territory, and of which a detailed description may be found in the fourth volume of this work. Most of these cities were abandoned and more or less unknown at the time of the [Spanish] Conquest. They bear hieroglyphic inscriptions apparently identical in character; in other respects they resemble each other more than they resemble the Aztec ruins—or even other and apparently later works in Guatemala and Honduras. All these remains bear evident marks of great antiquity. … I deem the grounds sufficient … for accepting this Central American civilization of the past as a fact, referring it not to an extinct ancient race, but to the direct ancestors of the peoples still occupying the country with the Spaniards, and applying to it the name Maya as that of the language which has claims as strong as any to be considered the mother tongue of the linguistic family mentioned. … There are no data by which to fix the period of the original Maya empire, or its downfall or breaking up into rival factions by civil and foreign wars. The cities of Yucatan, as is clearly shown by Mr. Stephens, were, many of them, occupied by the descendants of the builders down to the conquest, and contain some remnants of wood-work still in good preservation, although some of the structures appear to be built on the ruins of others of a somewhat different type. Palenque and Copan, on the contrary, have no traces of wood or other perishable material, and were uninhabited and probably unknown in the 16th century. The loss of the key to what must have been an advanced system of hieroglyphics, while the spoken language survived, is also an indication of great antiquity, confirmed by the fact that the Quiché structures of Guatemala differed materially from those of the more ancient epoch. It is not likely that the Maya empire in its integrity continued later than the 3d or 4th century, although its cities may have been inhabited much later, and I should fix the epoch of its highest power at a date preceding rather than following the Christian era."

H. H. Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States, volume 2, chapter 2; volume 4, chapters 3-6; volume 5, chapters 11-13.


ALSO IN Marquis de Nadaillac, Prehistoric America, chapters 6-7.

J. L. Stephens, Incidents of Travel in Yucatan; and Travel in Central America, &c.

      B. M. Norman,
      Rambles in Yucatan

      D. Charnay,
      Ancient Cities of the New World


   Mayoruna, or Barbudo.

See above: ANDESIANS.


See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS, &c.



   Miamis, or Twightwees.





"The name of Mingo, or Mengwe, by which the Iroquois were known to the Delawares and the other southern Algonkins, is said to be a contraction of the Lenape word 'Mahongwi,' meaning the 'People of the Springs.' The Iroquois possessed the head-waters of the rivers which flowed through the country of the Delawares."

H. Hale, The Iroquois Book of Rites, appendix, note. A.




      See above: HIDATSA;
      and below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
      See Note, Appendix E. 9.


      See below: SUSQUEHANNAS;
      and above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

   Minsis, Munsees, or Minisinks.







See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.


See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.



   Modocs (Klamaths) and their California and Oregon neighbors.

See Note, Appendix E.

"The principal tribes occupying this region [of Northern California from Rogue River on the north to the Eel River, south] are the Klamaths, who live on the head waters of the river and on the shores of the lake of that name; the Modocs, on Lower Klamath Lake and along Lost River; the Shastas, to the south-west of the Lakes; the Pitt River Indians; the Euroes, on the Klamath River between Weitspek and the coast; the Cahrocs, on the Klamath River from a short distance above the junction of the Trinity to the Klamath Mountains; the Hoopahs [or Hupas, a tribe of the Athapascan Family] in Hoopah Valley on the Trinity near its junction with the Klamath; numerous tribes on the coast from Eel River and Humboldt Bay north, such as the Weeyots, Wallies, Tolewahs, etc., and the Rogue River Indians, on and about the river of that name. The Northern Californians are in every way superior to the central and southern tribes."

H. Bancroft, The Native Races of the Pacific States, volume 1, chapter 4.

"On the Klamath there live three distinct tribes, called the Yú-rok, Ká-rok, and Mó-dok, which names are said to mean, respectively, 'down the river,' 'up the river,' and 'head of the river.' … The Karok are probably the finest tribe in California. … Hoopa Valley, on the Lower Trinity, is the home of [the Hú-pá]. Next after the Ká-rok they are the finest race in all that region, and they even excel them in their statecraft, and in the singular influence, or perhaps brute force, which they exercise over the vicinal tribes. They are the Romans of Northern California in their valor and their wide-reaching dominions; they are the French in the extended diffusion of their language." The Modoks, "on the whole … are rather a cloddish, indolent, ordinarily good-natured race, but treacherous at bottom, sullen when angered, notorious for keeping Punic faith. But their bravery nobody can impeach or deny; their heroic and long defense of their stronghold against the appliances of modern civilized warfare, including that arm so awful to savages—the artillery—was almost the only feature that lent respectability to their wretched tragedy of the Lava Beds [1873]."

      S. Powers,
      Tribes of California
      (Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 3),
      chapter 1, 7, and 27.

"The home of the Klamath tribe of southwestern Oregon lies upon the eastern slope of the southern extremity of the Cascade Range, and very nearly coincides with what we may call the head waters of the Klamath River, the main course of which lies in Northern California. … The main seat of the Modoc people was the valley of Lost River, the shores of Tule and of Little Klamath Lake. … The two main bodies forming the Klamath people are (1) the Klamath Lake Indians; (2) the Modoc Indians. The Klamath Lake Indians number more than twice as many as the Modoc Indians. They speak the northern dialect and form the northern chieftaincy. … The Klamath people possess no historic traditions going further back in time than a century, for the simple reason that there was a strict law prohibiting the mention of the person or acts of a deceased individual by using his name. … Our present knowledge does not allow us to connect the Klamath language genealogically with any of the other languages compared, but … it stands as a linguistic family for itself."

A. S. Gatschet, The Klamath Indians (Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 2, part 1).

   In Major Powell's linguistic classification, the Klamath and
   Modoc dialects are embraced in a family called the Lutuamian
   Family, derived from a Pit River word signifying "lake;" the
   Yuroks in a family called the Weitspekan; and the Pit River
   Indian dialects are provisionally set apart in a distinct
   family named the Palaihnihan Family.

      J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      pages 89 and 97.

   Mohaves (Mojaves).

See above: APACHE GROUP.



   Mohegans, or Mahicans.



      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;



   Moquelumnan Family.

"Derivation: From the river and hill of the same name in Calaveras County, California. … It was not until 1856 that the distinctness of the linguistic family was fully set forth by Latham. Under the head of Moquelumne, this author gathers several vocabularies representing different languages and dialects of the same stock. These are the Talatui of Hale, the Tuolumne from Schoolcraft, the Sonoma dialects as represented by the Tshokoyem vocabulary, the Chocuyem and Youkiousme paternosters, and the Olamentke of Kostromitonov in Bäer's Beiträge. … The Moquelumnan family occupies the territory bounded on the north by the Cosumne River, on the south by the Fresno River, on the east by the Sierra Nevada, and on the west by the San Joaquin River, with the exception of a strip on the east bank occupied by the Cholovone. A part of this family occupies also a territory bounded on the south by San Francisco Bay."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, pages 92-93.



See below: PUEBLOS.


See above: ANDESIANS.

   Moxos, or Mojos.

      See above: ANDESIANS;


See below: TUPI.




See above: GUCK OR Coco GROUP.

   Muskhogean, or Maskoki Family.

"Among the various nationalities of the Gulf territories the Maskoki family of tribes occupied a central and commanding position. Not only the large extent of territory held by them, but also their numbers, their prowess in war, and a certain degree of mental culture and self-esteem made of the Maskoki one of the most important groups in Indian history. From their ethnologic condition of later times, we infer that these tribes have extended for many centuries back in time from the Atlantic to the Mississippi and beyond that river, and from the Apalachian ridge to the Gulf of Mexico. With short intermissions they kept up warfare with all the circumjacent Indian communities, and also among each other. … The irresolute and egotistic policy of these tribes often caused serious difficulties to the government of the English and French colonies, and some of them constantly wavered in their adhesion between the French and the English cause. The American government overcame their opposition easily whenever a conflict presented itself (the Seminole War forms an exception), because, like all the Indians, they never knew how to unite against a common foe. The two main branches of the stock, the Creek and the Cha'hta [or Choctaw] Indians, were constantly at war, and the remembrance of their deadly conflicts has now passed to their descendants in the form of folk lore. … The only characteristic by which a subdivision of the family can be attempted, is that of language. Following their ancient topographic location from east to west, we obtain the following synopsis: First branch, or Maskoki proper: The Creek, Maskokálgi or Maskoki proper, settled on Coosa, Tallapoosa, Upper and Middle Chatahuchi rivers. From these branched off by segmentation the Creek portion of the Seminoles, of the Yámassi and of the little Yamacraw community. Second, or Apalachian branch: This southeastern division, which may be called also 'a parte potiori' the Hitchiti connection, anciently comprised the tribes on the Lower Chatahuchi river, and, east from there, the extinct Apalachi, the Mikasuki, and the Hitchiti portion of the Seminoles, Yámassi and Yamacraws. Third, or Alibamu branch, comprised the Alibamu villages on the river of that name; to them belonged the Koassáti and Witumka on Coosa river, its northern affluent. Fourth, Western or Cha'hta [Choctaw] branch: From the main people, the Cha'hta, settled in the middle portions of the State of Mississippi, the Chicasa, Pascagoula, Biloxi, Huma, and other tribes once became separated through segmentation. The strongest evidence for a community of origin of the Maskoki tribes is furnished by the fact that their dialects belong to one linguistic family. … Maskóki, Maskógi, isti Maskóki, designates a single person of the Creek tribe, and forms, as a collective plural, Maskokálgi, the Creek community, the Creek people, the Creek Indians. English authors write this name Muscogee, Muskhogee, and its plural Muscogulgee. The first syllable, as pronounced by the Creek Indians, contains a clear short a. … The accent is usually laid on the middle syllable: Maskóki, Maskógi. None of the tribes are able to explain the name from their own language. … Why did the English colonists call them Creek Indians? Because, when the English traders entered the Maskoki country from Charleston or Savannah, they had to cross a number of streams or creeks, especially between the Chatahuchi and Savannah rivers. Gallatin thought it probable that the inhabitants of the country adjacent to Savannah river were called Creeks from an early time. … In the southern part of the Cha'hta territory several tribes, represented to be of Cha'hta lineage, appear as distinct from the main body, and are always mentioned separately. The French colonists, in whose annals they figure extensively, call them Mobilians, Tohomes, Pascogoulas, Biloxis, Mougoulachas, Bayogoulas and Humas (Oumas). They have all disappeared in our epoch, with the exception of the Biloxi [Major Powell, in the Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, places the Biloxi in the Siouan Family], [See Note, Appendix E.] of whom scattered remnants live in the forests of Louisiana, south of the Red River."

A. S. Gatschet, A Migration Legend of the Creek Indians, volume 1, part 1.

"The Uchees and the Natches, who are both incorporated in the [Muskhogee or Creek] confederacy, speak two distinct languages altogether different from the Muskhogee. The Natches, a residue of the well-known nation of that name, came from the banks of the Mississippi, and joined the Creeks less than one hundred years ago. The original seats of the Uchees were east of the Coosa and probably of the Chatahoochee; and they consider themselves as the most ancient inhabitants of the country. They may have been the same nation which is called Apalaches in the accounts of De Soto's expedition. … The four great Southern nations, according to the estimates of the War Department … consist now [1836] of 67,000 souls, viz.: The Cherokees, 15,000; the Choctaws (18,500), the Chicasas (5,500), 24,000; the Muskhogees, Seminoles, and Hitchittees, 26,000; the Uchees, Alibamons, Coosadas, and Natches, 2,000. The territory west of the Mississippi, given or offered to them by the United States in exchange for their lands east of that river, contains 40,000,000 acres, exclusively of what may be allotted to the Chicasas."

A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archæologia Americana, volume 2), section 3.

See below: SEMINOLES.

   Musquito, or Mosquito Indians.

"That portion of Honduras known as the Musquito Coast derived its name, not from the abundance of those troublesome insects, but from a native tribe who at the discovery occupied the shore near Blewfield Lagoon. They are an intelligent people, short in stature, unusually dark in color, with finely cut features, and small straight noses—not at all negroid, except where there has been an admixture of blood. They number about 6,000, many of whom have been partly civilized by the efforts of missionaries, who have reduced the language to writing and published in it a number of works. The Tunglas are one of the sub-tribes of the Musquitos."

D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 162.

See, also, NICARAGUA: A. D., 1850.







See above: ANDESIANS.


      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      also RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636;
      and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637; 1674-1675; 1675; and 1676-1678.

   Natchesan Family.

When the French first entered the lower Mississippi valley, they found the Natchez [Na'htchi] occupying a region of country that now surrounds the city which bears their name. "By the persevering curiosity of Gallatin, it is established that the Natchez were distinguished from the tribes around them less by their customs and the degree of their civilization than by their language, which, as far as comparisons have been instituted, has no etymological affinity with any other whatever. Here again the imagination too readily invents theories; and the tradition has been widely received that the dominion of the Natchez once extended even to the Wabash. History knows them only as a feeble and inconsiderable nation, who in the 18th century attached themselves to the confederacy of the Creeks."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), volume 2, page 97.

"Chateaubriand, in his charming romances, and some of the early French writers, who often drew upon their fancy for their facts, have thrown an interest around the Natchez, as a semi-civilized and noble race, that has passed into history. We find no traces of civilization in their architecture, or in their social life and customs. Their religion was brutal and bloody, indicating an Aztec origin. They were perfidious and cruel, and if they were at all superior to the neighboring tribes it was probably due to the district they occupied—the most beautiful, healthy and productive in the valley of the Mississippi—and the influence of its attractions in substituting permanent for temporary occupation. The residence of the grand chief was merely a spacious cabin, of one apartment, with a mat of basket work for his bed and a log for his pillow. … Their government was an absolute despotism. The supreme chief was master of their labor, their property, and their lives. … The Natchez consisted exclusively of two classes—the Blood Royal and its connexions, and the common people, the Mich-i-mioki-quipe, or Stinkards. The two classes understood each other, but spoke a different dialect. Their customs of war, their treatment of prisoners, their ceremonies of marriage, their feasts and fasts, their sorceries and witchcraft, differed very little from other savages. Father Charlevoix, who visited Natchez in 1721, saw no evidences of civilization. Their villages consisted of a few cabins, or rather ovens, without windows and roofed with matting. The house of the Sun was larger, plastered with mud, and a narrow bench for a seat and bed. No other furniture in the mansion of this grand dignitary, who has been described by imaginative writers as the peer of Montezuma!"

J. F. H. Claiborne, Mississippi, volume 1, chapter 4.

In 1729, the Natchez, maddened by insolent oppressions, planned and executed a general massacre of the French within their territory. As a consequence, the tribe was virtually exterminated within the following two years.

C. Gayarre, Louisiana, its Colonial History and Romance, 2d series, lecture 3 and 5.

"The Na'htchi, according to Gallatin, a residue of the well-known nation of that name, came from the banks of the Mississippi, and joined the Creek less than one hundred years ago. The seashore from Mobile to the Mississippi was then inhabited by several small tribes, of which the Na'htchi was the principal. Before 1730 the tribe lived in the vicinity of Natchez, Miss., along St. Catherine Creek. After their dispersion by the French in 1730 most of the remainder joined the Chicasa and afterwards the Upper Creek. They are now in Creek and Cherokee Nations, Indian Territory. The linguistic relations of the language spoken by the Taensa tribe have long been in doubt, and it is possible they will ever remain so."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 96.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.
      See, also, above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.


      See Note, Appendix E.





   Neutral Nation.

      See above: HURONS, &c.;

   Nez Percés, or Sahaptins.

"The Sahaptins or Nez Percés [the Shahaptian Family in Major Powell's classification], with their affiliated tribes, occupied the middle and upper valley of the Columbia and its affluents, and also the passes of the mountains. They were in contiguity with the Shoshones and the Algonkin Blackfeet, thus holding an important position, intermediate between the eastern and the Pacific tribes. Having the commercial instinct of the latter, they made good use of it."

D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 107.

      ALSO IN
      J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 106.



   Nipmucs, or Nipnets.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; and 1676-1678









   Ojibwas, or Chippewas.

"The Ojibways, with their kindred, the Pottawattamies, and their friends the Ottawas,—the latter of whom were fugitives from the eastward, whence they had fled from the wrath of the Iroquois,—were banded into a sort of confederacy. They were closely allied in blood, language, manners and character. The Ojibways, by far the most numerous of the three, occupied the basin of Lake Superior, and extensive adjacent regions. In their boundaries, the career of Iroquois conquest found at length a check. The fugitive Wyandots sought refuge in the Ojibway hunting grounds; and tradition relates that, at the outlet of Lake Superior, an Iroquois war-party once encountered a disastrous repulse. In their mode of life, they were far more rude than the Iroquois, or even the southern Algonquin tribes."

F. Parkman, Conspiracy of Pontiac, chapter 1.


"The name of the tribe appears to be recent. It is not met with in the older writers. The French, who were the earliest to meet them, in their tribal seat at the falls or Sault de Ste Marie, named them Saulteur, from this circumstance. M'Kenzie uses the term 'Jibway,' as the equivalent of this term, in his voyages. They are referred to, with little difference in the orthography, in General Washington's report, in 1754, of his trip to Le Bœuf, on Lake Erie; but are first recognized, among our treaty-tribes, in the general treaty of Greenville, of 1794, in which, with the Ottawas they ceded the island of Michilimackinac, and certain dependencies, conceded by them at former periods to the French. … The Chippewas are conceded, by writers on American philology … to speak one of the purest forms of the Algonquin."

H. R. Schoolcraft, Information respecting the History, Condition and Prospects of the Indian Tribes, part 5, page 142.

ALSO IN G. Copway, The Ojibway Nation.

      J. G. Kohl,

      See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR:
      and above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.










      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY,

   Otoes, or Ottoes.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY,


"According to Aztec tradition, the Otomis were the earliest owners of the soil of Central Mexico. Their language was at the conquest one of the most widely distributed of any in this portion of the continent. Its central regions were the States of Queretaro and Guanajuato. … The Otomis are below the average stature, of dark color, the skull markedly dolichocephalic, the nose short and flattened, the eyes slightly oblique."

D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 135.


      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and OJIBWAS.
      See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR.


See above: ANDESIANS.


See above: ANDESIANS.



   Pampas Tribes.

"The chief tribe of the Pampas Indians was entitled Querandis by the Spaniards, although they called themselves Pehuelches [or Puelts—that is, the Eastern]. Various segments of these, under different names, occupied the immense tract of ground, between the river Parana and the republic of Chili. The Querandis … were the great opponents to settlement of the Spaniards in Buenos Ayres. … The Ancas or Aracaunos Indians [see CHILE] resided on the west of the Pampas near Chili, and from time to time assisted the Querandis in transporting stolen cattle across the Cordilleras. The southern part of the Pampas was occupied by the Balchitas, Uhilches, Telmelches, and others, all of whom were branches of the original Quelches horde. The Guarani Indians were the most famous of the South American races. … Of the Guayanas horde there were several tribes—independent of each other, and speaking different idioms, although having the same title of race. Their territory extended from the river Guarai, one of the affluents into the Uruguay, for many leagues northwards, and stretched over to the Parana opposite the city of Corpus Christi. They were some of the most vigorous opponents of the Spanish invaders. … The Nalicurgas Indians, who lived up to near 21° South latitude were reputed to dwell in caves, to be very limited in number, and to go entirely naked. The Gausarapos, or Guuchies dwelt in the marshy districts near where the river Gausarapo, or Guuchie, has its source. This stream enters from the east into the Paraguay at 19° 16' 30" South latitude. … The Cuatos lived inside of a lake to the west of the river Paraguay, and constituted a very small tribe. … The Orejones dwelt on the eastern brows of the mountains of Santa Lucia or San Fernando—close to the western side of Paraguay river. … Another tribe, the Niniquiquilas, had likewise the names of Potreros, Simanos, Barcenos, and Lathanos. They occupied a forest which began at about 19° South latitude, some leagues backward from the river Paraguay, and separated the Gran Chaco from the province of Los Chiquitos in Peru. … The Guanas Indians were divided into eight separate segments, for each of which there was a particular and different name. They lived between 20° and 22° of South latitude in the Gran Chaco to the west of Paraguay, and they were not known to the Spaniards till the latter crossed the last-named river in 1673. … The Albaias and Payaguas Indians … in former times, were the chief tribes of the Paraguay territory. … The Albaias were styled Machicuis and Enimgas by other authors. At the time of the Spaniards' arrival here, the Albaias occupied the Gran Chaco side of the river Paraguay from 20° to 22° South latitude. Here they entered into a treaty offensive and defensive with the Payaguas. … The joined forces of Albaias and Payaguas had managed to extend their territory in 1673 down to 24° 7' South on the eastern side of Paraguay river. … The Albaias were a very tall and muscular race of people. … The Payagua Indians, before and up to, as well as after, the period of the conquest, were sailors, and domineered over the river Paraguay. … The Guaicarus lived on the Chaco side of Paraguay river and subsisted entirely by hunting. From the barbarous custom which their women had of inducing abortion to avoid the pain or trouble of child-bearing, they became exterminated soon after the conquest. … The Tobas, who have also the titles of Natecœt and Yncanabaite, were among the best fighters of the Indians. They occupy the Gran Chaco, chiefly on the banks of the river Vermejo, and between that and the Pilcomayo. Of these there are some remains in the present day. … The Mocovis are likewise still to be found in the Chaco. … The Abipones, who were also styled Ecusgina and Quiabanabaite, lived in the Chaco, so low down as 28° South. This was the tribe with whom the Jesuits incorporated, when they erected the city of San Geronimo, in the Gran Chaco, and nearly opposite Goya, in 1748."

T. J. Hutchinson, The Parana, chapters 6-7.


"The Abipones inhabit [in the 18th century] the province Chaco, the centre of all Paraguay; they have no fixed abodes, nor any boundaries, except what fear of their neighbours has established. They roam extensively in every direction, whenever the opportunity of attacking their enemies, or the necessity of avoiding them renders a journey advisable. The northern shore of the Rio Grande or Bermejo, which the Indians call Iñatè, was their native land in the last century [the 17th]. Thence they removed, to avoid the war carried on against Chaco by the Spaniards … and, migrating towards the south, took possession of a valley formerly held by the Calchaquis. … From what region their ancestors came there is no room for conjecture."

M. Dobrizhoffer, Account of the Abipones, volume 2, chapter 1.

"The Abipones are in general above the middle stature, and of a robust constitution. In summer they go quite naked; but in winter cover themselves with skins. … They paint themselves all over with different colours."

Father Charlevoix, History of Paraguay, book 7 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN
      The Standard Natural History
      (J. S. Kingsley, editor),
      volume 6, pages 256-262.

See, also, below: TUPI. GUARANI.




See above: ANDESIANS.









   Patagonians and Fuegians.

"The Patagonians call themselves Chonek or Tzoueca, or Inaken (men, people), and by their Pampean neighbors are referred to as Tehuel-Che, southerners. They do not, however, belong to the Aucanian stock, nor do they resemble the Pampeans physically. They are celebrated for their stature, many of them reaching from six to six feet four inches in height, and built in proportion. In color they are a reddish brown, and have aquiline noses and good foreheads. They care little for a sedentary life, and roam the coast as far north as the Rio Negro. … On the inhospitable shores of Tierra del Fuego there dwell three nations of diverse stock, but on about the same plane of culture. One of these is the Yahgans, or Yapoos, on the Beagle Canal; the second is the Onas or Aonik, to the north and east of these; and the third the Aliculufs, to the north and west. … The opinion has been advanced by Dr. Deniker of Paris, that the Fuegians represent the oldest type or variety of the American race. He believes that at one time this type occupied the whole of South America south of the Amazon, and that the Tapuyas of Brazil and the Fuegians are its surviving members. This interesting theory demands still further evidence before it can be accepted."

D. G. Brinton, The American Race, pages 327-332.

   Pawnee Family (named "Caddoan" by Major Powell).

"The Pawnee Family, though some of its branches have long been known, is perhaps in history and language one of the least understood of the important tribes of the West. In both respects it seems to constitute a distinct group. During recent years its extreme northern and southern branches have evinced a tendency to blend with surrounding stocks; but the central branch, constituting the Pawnee proper, maintains still in its advanced decadence a bold line of demarcation between itself and all adjacent tribes. The members of the family are: The Pawnees, the Arikaras, the Caddos, the Huecos or Wacos, the Keechies, the Tawaconies, and the Pawnee Picts or Wichitas. The last five may be designated as the Southern or Red River branches. At the date of the Louisiana purchase the Caddos were living about 40 miles northwest of where Shreveport now stands. Five years earlier their residence was upon Clear Lake, in what is now Caddo Parish. This spot they claimed was the place of their nativity, and their residence from time immemorial. … They have a tradition that they are the parent stock, from which all the southern branches have sprung, and to some extent this claim has been recognized. … The five [southern] bands are now all gathered upon a reserve secured for them in the Indian Territory by the Government. … In many respects, their method of building lodges, their equestrianism, and certain social and tribal usages, they quite closely resemble the Pawnees. Their connection, however, with the Pawnee family, not till recently if ever mentioned, is mainly a matter of vague conjecture. … The name Pawnee is most probably derived from 'párĭk-ĭ,' a horn; and seems to have been once used by the Pawnees themselves to designate their peculiar scalp-lock. From the fact that this was the most noticeable feature in their costume, the name came naturally to be the denominative term of the tribe. The word in this use once probably embraced the Wichitas (i. e., Pawnee Picts) and the Arikaras. … The true Pawnee territory till as late as 1833 may be described as extending from the Niobrara south to the Arkansas. They frequently hunted considerably beyond the Arkansas; tradition says as far as the Canadian. … On the east they claimed to the Missouri, though in eastern Nebraska, by a sort of tacit permit, the Otoes, Poncas, and Omahas along that stream occupied lands extending as far west as the Elkhorn. In Kansas, also, east of the Big Blue, they had ceased to exercise any direct control, as several remnants of tribes, the Wyandots, Delawares, Kickapoos, and Iowas, had been settled there and were living under the guardianship of the United States. … On the west their grounds were marked by no natural boundary, but may perhaps be described by a line drawn from the mouth of Snake River on the Niobrara southwest to the North Platte, thence south to the Arkansas. … It is not to be supposed, however, that they held altogether undisturbed possession of this territory. On the north they were incessantly harassed by various bands of the Dakotas, while upon the south the Osages, Comanches, Cheyennes, Arapahoes and Kiowas (the last three originally northern tribes) were equally relentless in their hostility. … In 1833 the Pawnees surrendered to the United States their claim upon all the above described territory lying south of the Platte. In 1858 all their remaining territory was ceded, except a reserve 30 miles long and 15 wide upon the Loup Fork of the Platte, its eastern limit beginning at Beaver Creek. In 1874 they sold this tract and removed to a reserve secured for them by the Government in the Indian Territory, between the Arkansas and Cimarron at their junction."

      J. B. Dunbar,
      The Pawnee Indians
      (Magazine of American History, April, 1880, volume 4).

      ALSO IN
      G. B. Grinnell,
      Pawnee Hero Stories.

      D. G. Brinton,
      The American Race,
      pages 95-97.

      J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 59.

See, also, above: ADAIS and BLACKFEET.




   Pehuelches, or Puelts.


   Penacooks, or Pawtucket Indians.





      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      and below: SHAWANESE;
      also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.


See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS, &c.


See above: BLACKFEET.

   Piman Family.

"Only a small portion of the territory occupied by this family is included within the United States, the greater portion being in Mexico, where it extends to the Gulf of California. The family is represented in the United States by three tribes, Pima alta, Sobaipuri, and Papago. The former have lived for at least two centuries with the Maricopa on the Gila River about 160 miles from the mouth. The Sobaipuri occupied the Santa Cruz and San Pedro Rivers, tributaries of the Gila, but are no longer known. The Papago territory is much more extensive and extends to the south across the border."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, pages 98-99.

See below: PUEBLOS.




See above: ANDESIANS.

   Pit River Indians.

See above: MODOCS (KLAMATHS), &c.



   Pokanokets, or Wampanoags.

      See above:
      also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678 (KING
      PHILIP'S WAR).

   Ponkas, or Puncas.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY;
      and above: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.


See above: CHONTALS.



   Powhatan Confederacy.

"At the time of the first settlement by the Europeans, it has been estimated that there were not more than 20,000 Indians within the limits of the State of Virginia. Within a circuit of 60 miles from Jamestown, Captain Smith says there were about 5,000 souls, and of these scarce 1,500 were warriors. The whole territory between the mountains and the sea was occupied by more than 40 tribes, 30 of whom were united in a confederacy under Powhatan, whose dominions, hereditary and acquired by conquest, comprised the whole country between the rivers James and Potomac, and extended into the interior as far as the falls of the principal rivers. Campbell, in his History of Virginia, states the number of Powhatan's subjects to have been 8,000. Powhatan was a remarkable man; a sort of savage Napoleon, who, by the force of his character and the superiority of his talents, had raised himself from the rank of a petty chieftain to something of imperial dignity and power. He had two places of abode, one called Powhatan, where Richmond now stands, and the other at Werowocomoco, on the north side of York River, within the present county of Gloucester. … Besides the large confederacy of which Powhatan was the chief, there were two others, with which that was often at war. One of these, called the Mannahoacs, consisted of eight tribes, and occupied the country between the Rappahannoc and York rivers; the other, consisting of five tribes, was called the Monacans, and was settled between York and James rivers above the Falls. There were also, in addition to these, many scattering and independent tribes."

G. S. Hillard, Life of Captain John Smith (Library of American Biographies), chapter 4.

"The English invested savage life with all the dignity of European courts. Powhatan was styled 'King,' or 'Emperor,' his principal warriors were lords of the kingdom, his wives were queens, his daughter was a 'princess,' and his cabins were his various seats of residence. … In his younger days Powhatan had been a great warrior. Hereditarily, he was the chief or werowance of eight tribes; through conquest his dominions had been extended. … The name of his nation and the Indian appellation of the James River was Powhatan. He himself possessed several names."

E. Eggleston and L. E. Seelye, Pocahontas, chapter 3.

      ALSO IN
      Captain John Smith,
      Description of Virginia, and General Historie of Virginia.
      (Arber's reprint of Works, pages 65 and 360)

See, also, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.




   "The non-nomadic semi-civilized town and agricultural peoples
   of New Mexico and Arizona … I call the Pueblos, or
   Townspeople, from pueblo, town, population, people, a name
   given by the Spaniards to such inhabitants of this region as
   were found, when first discovered, permanently located in
   comparatively well-built towns. Strictly speaking, the term
   Pueblos applies only to the villagers settled along the banks
   of the Rio Grande del Norte and its tributaries between
   latitudes 34° 45' and 36° 30', and although the name is
   employed as a general appellation for this division, it will
   be used, for the most part, only in its narrower and popular
   sense. In this division, besides the before mentioned Pueblos
   proper, are embraced the Moquis, or villagers of eastern
   Arizona, and the non-nomadic agricultural nations of the lower
   Gila river,—the Pimas, Maricopas, Papagos, and cognate
   tribes. The country of the Townspeople, if we may credit
   Lieutenant Simpson, is one of 'almost universal barrenness,'
   yet interspersed with fertile spots; that of the agricultural
   nations, though dry, is more generally productive. The fame of
   this so-called civilization reached Mexico at an early day …
   in exaggerated rumors of great cities to the north, which
   prompted the expeditions of Marco de Niza in 1539, of Coronado
   in 1540, and of Espejo in 1586 [1583]. These adventurers
   visited the north in quest of the fabulous kingdoms of
   Quivira, Tontonteac, Marata and others, in which great riches
   were said to exist. The name of Quivira was afterwards applied
   by them to one or more of the pueblo cities. The name Cibola,
   from 'Cibolo,' Mexican bull, 'bos bison,' or wild ox of New
   Mexico, where the Spaniards first encountered buffalo, was
   given to seven of the towns which were afterwards known as the
   Seven Cities of Cibola. But most of the villages known at the
   present day were mentioned in the reports of the early
   expeditions by their present names.
   … The towns of the Pueblos are essentially unique, and are
   the dominant feature of these aboriginals. Some of them are
   situated in valleys, others on mesas; sometimes they are
   planted on elevations almost inaccessible, reached only by
   artificial grades, or by steps cut in the solid rock. Some of
   the towns are of an elliptical shape, while others are square,
   a town being frequently but a block of buildings. Thus a
   Pueblo consists of one or more squares, each enclosed by three
   or four buildings of from 300 to 400 feet in length, and about
   150 feet in width at the base, and from two to seven stories
   of from eight to nine feet each in height. … The stories are
   built in a series of gradations or retreating surfaces,
   decreasing in size as they rise, thus forming a succession of
   terraces. In some of the towns these terraces are on both
   sides of the building; in others they face only towards the
   outside; while again in others they are on the inside. These
   terraces are about six feet wide, and extend around the three
   or four sides of the square, forming a walk for the occupants
   of the story resting upon it, and a roof for the story
   beneath; so with the stories above. As there is no inner
   communication with one another, the only means of mounting to
   them is by ladders which stand at convenient distances along
   the several rows of terraces, and they may be drawn up at
   pleasure, thus cutting off all unwelcome intrusion. The
   outside walls of one or more of the lower stories are entirely
   solid, having no openings of any kind, with the exception of,
   in some towns, a few loopholes. … To enter the rooms on the
   ground floor from the outside, one must mount the ladder to
   the first balcony or terrace, then descend through a trap door
   in the floor by another ladder on the inside. … The several
   stories of these huge structures are divided into
   multitudinous compartments of greater or less size, which are
   apportioned to the several families of the tribe."

H. H. Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States, volume 1, chapter 5.

"There can be no doubt that Cibola is to be looked for in New Mexico. … We cannot … refuse to adopt the views of General Simpson and of Mr. W. W. H. Davis, and to look at the pueblo of Zuni as occupying, if not the actual site, at least one of the sites within the tribal area of the Seven Cities of Cibola. Nor can we refuse to identify Tusayan with the Moqui district, and Acuco with Acoma."

      A. F. Bandelier,
      Historical Introduction to Studies among the Sedentary
      Indians of North Mexico
      (Papers of the Archœolog. Institute of America:
      American Series, volume 1).

      ALSO IN
      J. H. Simpson,
      The March of Coronado.

      L. H. Morgan,
      Houses and House-life of the American Aborigines
      (Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 4),
      chapter 6.

      F. H. Cushing,
      My Adventures in Zuñi
      (Century, volume 3-4)

      F. H. Cushing,
      Fourth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology (1882-83),
      pages 473-480.

      F. W. Blackmar,
      Spanish Institutions of the Southwest,
      chapter 10.

      See, also, AMERICA, PREHISTORIC,
      and above: PIMAN FAMILY and KERESAN FAMILY.

   Pujunan Family.

"The following tribes were placed in this group by Latham: Pujuni, Secumne, Tsamak of Hale, and the Cushna of Schoolcraft. The name adopted for the family is the name of a tribe given by Hale. This was one of the two races into which, upon the information of Captain Sutter as derived by Mr. Dana, all the Sacramento tribes were believed to be divided. 'These races resembled one another in every respect but language.' … The tribes of this family have been carefully studied by Powers, to whom we are indebted for most all we know of their distribution. They occupied the eastern bank of the Sacramento in California, beginning some 80 or 100 miles from its mouth, and extended northward to within a short distance of Pit River."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, pages 99-100.

   Puncas, or Ponkas.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY:
      and above: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.


See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.





   Querandis, or Pehuelches, or Puelts.



"Of the ancient races of America, those which approached the nearest to a civilized condition spoke related dialects of a tongue, which from its principal members has been called the Maya Quiche linguistic stock. Even to-day, it is estimated that half a million persons use these dialects. They are scattered over Yucatan, Guatemala, and the adjacent territory, and one branch formerly occupied the hot lowlands on the Gulf of Mexico, north of Vera Cruz. The so-called 'metropolitan' dialects are those spoken relatively near the city of Guatemala, and include the Cakchiquel, the Quiche, the Pokonchi and the Tzutuhill. They are quite closely allied, and are mutually intelligible, resembling each other about as much as did in ancient Greece the Attic, Ionic and Doric dialects. … The civilization of these people was such that they used various mnemonic signs, approaching our alphabet, to record and recall their mythology and history. Fragments, more or less complete, of these traditions have been preserved. The most notable of them is the national legend of the Quiches of Guatemala, the so-called Popol Vuh. It was written at an unknown date in the Quiche dialect, by a native who was familiar with the ancient records."

D. G. Brinton, Essays of an Americanist, page 104.

      ALSO IN,
      D. G. Brinton,
      Annals of the Cakchiquels.

      H. H. Bancroft,
      Native Races of the Pacific States,
      chapter 11.

See, also, above: MAYAS.




See above: ANDESIANS.

   Quoratean Family.

"The tribes occupy both banks of the lower Klamath from a range of hills a little above Happy Camp to the junction of the Trinity, and the Salmon River from its mouth to its sources. On the north, Quoratean tribes extended to the Athapascan territory near the Oregon line."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 101.

   Rapid Indians.

   A name applied by various writers to the Arapahoes, and other




See above: ANDESIANS.

   Rogue River Indians.

See above: MODOCS, ETC.

See Note, Appendix E.






   Sacs (Sauks), Foxes, etc.

"The Sauks or Saukies (White Clay), and Foxes or Outagamies, so called by the Europeans and Algonkins, but whose true name is Musquakkiuk (Red Clay), are in fact but one nation. The French missionaries on coming first in contact with them, in the year 1665, at once found that they spoke the same language, and that it differed from the Algonkin, though belonging to the same stock; and also that this language was common to the Kickapoos, and to those Indians they called Maskontens. This last nation, if it ever had an existence as a distinct tribe, has entirely disappeared. But we are informed by Charlevoix, and Mr. Schoolcraft corroborates the fact, that the word 'Mascontenck' means a country without woods, a prairie. The name Mascontens was therefore used to designate 'prairie Indians.' And it appears that they consisted principally of Sauks and Kickapoos, with an occasional mixture of Potowotamies and Miamis, who probably came there to hunt the Buffalo. The country assigned to those Mascontens lay south of the Fox River of Lake Michigan and west of Illinois River. … When first discovered, the Sauks and Foxes had their seats toward the southern extremity of Green Bay, on Fox River, and generally farther east than the country which they lately occupied. … By the treaty of 1804, the Sauks and Foxes ceded to the United States all their lands east of … the Mississippi. … The Kickapoos by various treaties, 1809 to 1819, have also ceded all their lands to the United States. They claimed all the country between the Illinois River and the Wabash, north of the parallel of latitude passing by the mouth of the Illinois and south of the Kankakee River. … The territory claimed by the Miamis and Piankishaws may be generally stated as having been bounded eastwardly by the Maumee River of Lake Erie, and to have included all the country drained by the Wabash. The Piankishaws occupied the country bordering on the Ohio."

A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archæologia Americana, volume 2), introduction, section 2.

The Mascontens, or Mascoutins, "seldom appear alone, but almost always in connection with their kindred, the Ottagamies or Foxes and the Kickapoos, and like them bear a character for treachery and deceit. The three tribes may have in earlier days formed the Fire-Nation [of the early French writers], but, as Gallatin observes in the Archæologia Americana, it is very doubtful whether the Mascoutins were ever a distinct tribe. If this be so, and there is no reason to reject it, the disappearance of the name will not be strange."

      J. G. Shea,
      Brief Researches Respecting the Mascoutins
      (Schoolcraft's Information Respecting Indian Tribes,
      part 4, page 245)


For an account of the Black Hawk War

See Illinois, A. D. 1832.


See above: NEZ PERCÉS.

   Salinan Family.

   This name is given by Major Powell to the San Antonio and San
   Miguel dialects spoken by two tribes on the Salinas River,
   Monterey County, California.

      J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 101.


   Salishan Family.

See above: FLATHEADS.

   Sanhikans, or Mincees.


   Sans Arcs.




See Note. Appendix E.

   Sarcee (Tinneh).

See above: BLACKFEET.

See Note. Appendix E.

   Sastean Family.

"The single tribe upon the language of which Hale based his name was located by him to the southwest of the Lutuami or Klamath tribes. … The former territory of the Sastean family is the region drained by the Klamath River and its tributaries from the western base of the Cascade range to the point where the Klamath flows through the ridge of hills east of Happy Camp, which forms the boundary between the Sastean and the Quoratean families. In addition to this region of the Klamath, the Shasta extended over the Siskiyou range northward as far as Ashland, Oregon:"

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 106.




"The term 'semanóle,' or 'isti Simanóle,' signifies 'separatish' or 'runaway,' and as a tribal name points to the Indians who left the Creek, especially the Lower Creek settlements, for Florida, to live, hunt, and fish there in independence. The term does not mean 'wild,' 'savage,' as frequently stated; if applied now in this sense to animals, it is because of its original meaning, 'what has become a runaway.' … The Seminoles of modern times are a people compounded of the following elements: separatists from the Lower Creek and Hitchiti towns; remnants of tribes partly civilized by the Spaniards; Yamassi Indians, and some negroes. … The Seminoles were always regarded as a sort of outcasts by the Creek tribes from which they had seceded, and no doubt there were reasons for this. … These Indians showed, like the Creeks, hostile intentions towards the thirteen states during and after the Revolution, and conjointly with the Upper Creeks on Tallapoosa river concluded a treaty of friendship with the Spaniards at Pensacola in May, 1784. Although under Spanish control, the Seminoles entered into hostilities with the Americans in 1793 and 1812. In the latter year Payne míko ['King Payne'] was killed in a battle at Alachua, and his brother, the influential Bowlegs, died soon after. These unruly tribes surprised and massacred American settlers on the Satilla river, Georgia, in 1817, and another conflict began, which terminated in the destruction of the Mikasuki and Suwanee river towns of the Seminoles by General Jackson, in April, 1818. [See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.] After the cession of Florida, and its incorporation into the American Union (1819), the Seminoles gave up all their territory by the treaty of Fort Moultrie, Sept. 18th, 1823, receiving in exchange goods and annuities. When the government concluded to move these Indians west of the Mississippi river, a treaty of a conditional character was concluded with them at Payne's landing, in 1832. The larger portion were removed, but the more stubborn part dissented, and thus gave origin to one of the gravest conflicts which ever occurred between Indians and whites. The Seminole war began with the massacre of Major Dade's command near Wahoo swamp, December 28th, 1835, and continued with unabated fury for five years, entailing an immense expenditure of money and lives. [See FLORIDA: A. D. 1835-1843.] A number of Creek warriors joined the hostile Seminoles in 1836. A census of the Seminoles taken in 1822 gave a population of 3,899, with 800 negroes belonging to them. The population of the Seminoles in the Indian Territory amounted to 2,667 in 1881. … There are some Seminoles now in Mexico, who went there with their negro slaves."

A. S. Gatschet, A Migration Legend of the Creek Indians, volume 1, part 1, section 2.


"Ever since the first settlement of these Indians in Florida they have been engaged in a strife with the whites. … In the unanimous judgment of unprejudiced writers, the whites have ever been in the wrong."

D. G. Brinton, Notes on the Floridian Peninsula, page 148.

"There were in Florida, October 1, 1880, of the Indians commonly known as Seminole, 208. They constituted 37 families, living in 22 camps, which were gathered into five widely separated groups or settlements. … This people our Government has never been able to conciliate or to conquer. … The Seminole have always lived within our borders as aliens. It is only of late years, and through natural necessities, that any friendly intercourse of white man and Indian has been secured. … The Indians have appropriated for their service some of the products of European civilization, such as weapons, implements, domestic utensils, fabrics for clothing, &c. Mentally, excepting a few religious ideas which they received long ago from the teaching of Spanish missionaries, and, in the southern settlements, excepting some few Spanish words, the Seminole have accepted and appropriated practically nothing from the white man."

      C. MacCauley,
      The Seminole Indians of Florida
      (Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-84),
      introduction and chapter 4.

      ALSO IN
      J. T. Sprague,
      The Florida War

      S. G. Drake,
      The Aboriginal Races of North America.
      book 4, chapter 6-21.

See, also, above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

   Senecas; their name.

"How this name originated is a 'vexata quæstio' among Indo-antiquarians and etymologists. The least plausible supposition is, that the name has any reference to the moralist Seneca. Some have supposed it to be a corruption of the Dutch term for vermillion, cinebar, or cinnabar, under the assumption that the Senecas, being the most warlike of the Five Nations, used that pigment more than the others, and thus gave origin to the name. This hypothesis is supported by no authority. … The name 'Sennecas' first appears on a Dutch map of 1616, and again on Jean de Laet's map of 1633. … It is claimed by some that the word may be derived from 'Sinnekox,' the Algonquin name of a tribe of Indians spoken of in Wassenaer's History of Europe, on the authority of Peter Barentz, who traded with them about the year 1626. … Without assuming to solve the mystery, the writer contents himself with giving some data which may possibly aid others in arriving at a reliable conclusion. [Here follows a discussion of the various forms of name by which the Senecas designated themselves and were known to the Hurons, from whom the Jesuits first heard of them.] By dropping the neuter prefix O, the national title became 'Nan-do-wah-gaah,' or 'The great hill people,' as now used by the Senecas. … If the name Seneca can legitimately be derived from the Seneca word 'Nan-do-wah-gaah' … it can only be done by prefixing 'Son,' as was the custom of the Jesuits, and dropping all unnecessary letters. It would then form the word 'Son-non-do-wa-ga,' the first two and last syllables of which, if the French sounds of the letters are given, are almost identical in pronunciation with Seneca. The chief difficulty, however, would be in the disposal of the two superfluous syllables. They may have been dropped in the process of contraction so common in the composition of Indian words—a result which would be quite likely to occur to a Seneca name, in its transmission through two other languages, the Mohawk and the Dutch. The foregoing queries and suggestions are thrown out for what they are worth, in the absence of any more reliable theory."

O. H. Marshall, Historical Writings, page 231


See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR.

For an account of Sullivan's expedition against the Senecas,



See above: ANDESIANS.

   Shahaptian Family.

See above: NEZ PERCÉS.



   Shawanese, Shawnees, or Shawanoes.

"Adjacent to the Lenape [or Delawares—see above], and associated with them in some of the most notable passages of their history, dwelt the Shawanoes, the Chaouanons of the French, a tribe of bold, roving, and adventurous spirit. Their eccentric wanderings, their sudden appearances and disappearances, perplex the antiquary, and defy research; but from various scattered notices, we may gather that at an early period they occupied the valley of the Ohio; that, becoming embroiled with the Five Nations, they shared the defeat of the Andastes, and about the year 1672 fled to escape destruction. Some found an asylum in the country of the Lenape, where they lived tenants at will of the Five Nations; others sought refuge in the Carolinas and Florida, where, true to their native instincts, they soon came to blows with the owners of the soil. Again, turning northwards, they formed new settlements in the valley of the Ohio, where they were now suffered to dwell in peace, and where, at a later period, they were joined by such of their brethren as had found refuge among the Lenape."

F. Parkman, The Conspiracy of Pontiac, chapter 1.

"The Shawnees were not found originally in Ohio, but migrated there after 1750. They were called Chaouanons by the French and Shawanoes by the English. The English name Shawano changed to Shawanee, and recently to Shawnee. Chaouanon and Shawano are obviously attempts to represent the same sound by the orthography of the two respective languages. … Much industry has been used by recent writers, especially by Dr. Brinton, to trace this nomadic tribe to its original home; but I think without success. … We first find the Shawano in actual history about the year 1660, and living along the Cumberland river, or the Cumberland and Tennessee. Among the conjectures as to their earlier history, the greatest probability lies for the present with the earliest account—the account given by Perrot, and apparently obtained by him from the Shawanoes themselves, about the year 1680—that they formerly lived by the lower lakes, and were driven thence by the Five Nations."

M. F. Force, Some Early Notices of the Indians of Ohio.

"Their [the Shawnee's] dialect is more akin to the Mohegan than to the Delaware, and when, in 1692, they first appeared in the area of the Eastern Algonkin Confederacy, they came as the friends and relatives of the former. They were divided into four bands"—Piqua, properly Pikoweu, Mequachake, Kiscapokoke, Chilicothe. "Of these, that which settled in Pennsylvania was the Pikoweu, who occupied and gave their name to the Pequa valley in Lancaster county. According to ancient Mohegan tradition, the New England Pequods were members of this band."

D. G. Brinton, The Lenape and their Legends, chapter 2.

      D. G. Brinton,
      The Shawnees and their Migrations
      (History Magazine, volume 10, 1866)


"The Shawanese, whose villages were on the western bank [of the Susquehanna] came into the valley [of Wyoming] from their former localities, at the 'forks of the Delaware' (the junction of the Delaware and Lehigh, at Easton), to which point they had been induced at some remote period to emigrate from their earlier home, near the mouth of the river Wabash, in the 'Ohio region,' upon the invitation of the Delawares. This was Indian diplomacy, for the Delawares were desirous (not being upon the most friendly terms with the Mingos, or Six Nations) to accumulate a force against those powerful neighbors. But, as might be expected, they did not long live in peace with their new allies. … The Shawanese [about 1755, or soon after] were driven out of the valley by their more powerful neighbors, the Delawares, and the conflict which resulted in their leaving it grew out of, or was precipitated by, a very trifling incident. While the warriors of the Delawares were engaged upon the mountains in a hunting expedition, a number of squaws or female Indians from Maughwauwame were gathering wild fruits along the margin of the river below the town, where they found a number of Shawanese squaws and their children, who had crossed the river in their canoes upon the same business. A child belonging to the Shawanese having taken a large grasshopper, a quarrel arose among the children for the possession of it, in which their mothers soon took part. … The quarrel became general. … Upon the return of the warriors both tribes prepared for battle. … The Shawanese … were not able to sustain the conflict, and, after the loss of about half their tribe, the remainder were forced to flee to their own side of the river, shortly after which they abandoned their town and removed to the Ohio." This war between the Delawares and Shawanese has been called the Grasshopper War.

L. H. Miner, The Valley of Wyoming, page 32.


      A. D. 1765-1768;

For an account of "Lord Dunmore's War",

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

   Sheepeaters (Tukuarika).




   Shoshonean Family.

"This important family occupied a large part of the great interior basin of the United States. Upon the north Shoshonean tribes extended far into Oregon, meeting Shahaptian territory on about the 44th parallel or along the Blue Mountains. Upon the northeast the eastern limits of the pristine habitat of the Shoshonean tribes are unknown. The narrative of Lewis and Clarke contains the explicit statement that the Shoshoni bands encountered upon the Jefferson River, whose summer home was upon the head waters of the Columbia, formerly lived within their own recollection in the plains to the east of the Rocky Mountains, whence they were driven to their mountain retreats by the Minnetaree (Atsina), who had obtained firearms. … Later a division of the Bannock held the finest portion of Southwestern Montana, whence apparently they were being pushed westward across the mountains by Blackfeet. Upon the east the Tukuarika or Sheepeaters held the Yellowstone Park country, where they were bordered by the Siouan territory, while the Washaki occupied southwestern Wyoming. Nearly the entire mountainous part of Colorado was held by the several bands of the Ute, the eastern and southeastern parts of the State being held respectively by the Arapaho and Cheyenne (Algonquian), and the Kaiowe (Kiowan). To the southeast the Ute country included the northern drainage of the San Juan, extending farther east a short distance into New Mexico. The Comanche division of the family extended farther east than any other. … Bourgemont found a Comanche tribe on the upper Kansas River in 1724. According to Pike the Comanche territory bordered the Kaiowe on the north, the former occupying the head waters of the Upper Red River, Arkansas and Rio Grande. How far to the southward Shoshonean tribes extended at this early period is not known, though the evidence tends to show that they raided far down into Texas, to the territory they have occupied in more recent years, viz., the extensive plains from the Rocky Mountains eastward into Indian Territory and Texas to about 97°. Upon the south Shoshonean territory was limited generally by the Colorado River … while the Tusayan (Moki) had established their seven pueblos … to the east of the Colorado Chiquito. In the southwest Shoshonean tribes had pushed across California, occupying a wide band of country to the Pacific."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, pages 109-110.

"The Pah Utes occupy the greater part of Nevada, and extend southward. … The Pi Utes or Piutes inhabit Western Utah, from Oregon to New Mexico. … The Gosh Utes [Gosuites] inhabit the country west of Great Salt Lake, and extend to the Pah Utes."

H. H. Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States, volume 1, chapter 4.

   Siksikas, or Sisikas.

See above: BLACKFEET.

   Siouan Family.

See Note, Appendix E.

   "The nations which speak the Sioux language may be considered,
   in reference both to their respective dialects and to their
   geographical position, as consisting of four subdivisions,
   viz., the Winnebagoes; the Sioux proper and the Assiniboins;
   the Minetare group; and the Osages and other southern kindred
   tribes. The Winnebagoes, so called by the Algonkins, but
   called Puans and also Otchagras by the French, and Horoje
   ('fish-eaters') by the Omahaws and other southern tribes, call
   themselves Hochungorah, or the 'Trout' nation. The Green Bay
   of Lake Michigan derives its French name from theirs (Baye des
   Puans). … According to the War Department they amount [1836]
   to 4,600 souls, and appear to cultivate the soil to a
   considerable degree. Their principal seats are on the Fox
   River of Lake Michigan, and towards the heads of the Rock
   River of the Mississippi. … The Sioux proper, or
   Naudowessies, names given to them by the Algonkins and the
   French, call themselves Dahcotas, and sometimes 'Ochente
   Shakoans,' or the Seven Fires, and are divided into seven
   bands or tribes, closely connected together, but apparently
   independent of each other. They do not appear to have been
   known to the French before the year 1660.
   … The four most eastern tribes of the Dahcotas are known by
   the name of the Mendewahkantoan, or 'Gens du Lac,' Wahkpatoan
   and Wahkpakotoan, or 'People of the Leaves,' and Sisitoans.
   … The three westerly tribes, the Yanktons, the Yanktonans,
   and the Tetons, wander between the Mississippi and the
   Missouri. … The Assiniboins (Stone Indians), as they are
   called by the Algonkins, are a Dahcota tribe separated from
   the rest of the nation, and on that account called Hoha or
   'Rebels,' by the other Sioux. They are said to have made part
   originally of the Yanktons. … Another tribe, called
   Sheyennes or Cheyennes, were at no very remote period seated
   on the left bank of the Red River of Lake Winnipek. … Carver
   reckons them as one of the Sioux tribes; and Mackenzie informs
   us that they were driven away by the Sioux. They now [1836]
   live on the headwaters of the river Sheyenne, a southwestern
   tributary of the Missouri. … I have been, however, assured
   by a well-informed person who trades with them that they speak
   a distinct language, for which there is no European
   interpreter. … The Minetares (Minetaree and Minetaries)
   consist of three tribes, speaking three different languages,
   which belong to a common stock. Its affinities with the
   Dahcota are but remote, but have appeared sufficient to
   entitle them to be considered as of the same family. Two of
   those tribes, the Mandanes, whose number does not exceed
   1,500, and the stationary Minetares, amounting to 3,000 souls,
   including those called Annahawas, cultivate the soil, and live
   in villages situated on or near the Missouri, between 47° and
   48° north latitude. … The third Minetare tribe, is that
   known by the name of the Crow or Upsaroka [or Absaroka]
   nation, probably the Keeheetsas of Lewis and Clarke. They are
   an erratic tribe, who hunt south of the Missouri, between the
   Little Missouri and the southeastern branches of the
   Yellowstone River. … The southern Sioux consist of eight
   tribes, speaking four, or at most five, kindred dialects.
   Their territory originally extended along the Mississippi,
   from below the mouth of the Arkansas to the forty-first degree
   of north latitude. … Their hunting grounds extend as far
   west as the Stony Mountains; but they all cultivate the soil,
   and the most westerly village on the Missouri is in about 100°
   west longitude. The three most westerly tribes are the Quappas
   or Arkansas, at the mouth of the river of that name, and the
   Osages and Kansas, who inhabited the country south of the
   Missouri and of the river Kansas. … The Osages, properly
   Wausashe, were more numerous and powerful than any of the
   neighbouring tribes, and perpetually at war with all the other
   Indians, without excepting the Kansas, who speak the same
   dialect with themselves. They were originally divided into
   Great and Little Osages; but about forty years ago almost
   one-half of the nation, known by the name of Chaneers, or
   Clermont's Band, separated from the rest, and removed to the
   river Arkansa. The villages of those several subdivisions are
   now [1836] on the headwaters of the river Osage, and of the
   Verdigris, a northern tributary stream of the Arkansa. They
   amount to about 5,000 souls, and have ceded a portion of their
   lands to the United States, reserving to themselves a
   territory on the Arkansa, south of 38° North latitude,
   extending from 95° to 100° West longitude, on a breadth of 45
   to 50 miles. The territory allotted to the Cherokees, the
   Creeks and the Choctaws lies south of that of the Osage. …
   The Kansas, who have always lived on the river of that name,
   have been at peace with the Osage for the last thirty years,
   and intermarry with them. They amount to 1,500 souls, and
   occupy a tract of about 3,000,000 acres. … The five other
   tribes of this subdivision are the Ioways, or Pahoja (Grey
   Snow), the Missouris or Neojehe, the Ottoes, or Wahtootahtah,
   the Omahaws, or Mahas, and the Puncas. … All the nations
   speaking languages belonging to the Great Sioux Family may …
   be computed at more than 50,000 souls."

A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archœologia Americana, volume 2), section 4.

"Owing to the fact that 'Sioux' is a word of reproach and means snake or enemy, the term has been discarded by many later writers as a family designation, and 'Dakota,' which signifies friend or ally, has been employed in its stead. The two words are, however, by no means properly synonymous. The term 'Sioux' was used by Gallatin in a comprehensive or family sense and was applied to all the tribes collectively known to him to speak kindred dialects of a widespread language. It is in this sense only, as applied to the linguistic family, that the term is here employed. The term 'Dahcota' (Dakota) was correctly applied by Gallatin to the Dakota tribes proper as distinguished from the other members of the linguistic family who are not Dakotas in a tribal sense. The use of the term with this signification should be perpetuated. It is only recently that a definite decision has been reached respecting the relationship of the Catawba and Woccon, the latter an extinct tribe known to have been linguistically related to the Catawba. Gallatin thought that he was able to discern some affinities of the Catawban language with 'Muskhogee and even with Choctaw,' though these were not sufficient to induce him to class them together. Mr. Gatschet was the first to call attention to the presence in the Catawba language of a considerable number of words having a Siouan affinity. Recently Mr. Dorsey has made a critical examination of all the Catawba linguistic material available, which has been materially increased by the labors of Mr. Gatschet, and the result seems to justify its inclusion as one of the dialects of the widespread Siouan family." The principal tribes in the Siouan Family named by Major Powell are the Dakota (including Santee, Sisseton, Wahpeton, Yankton, Yanktonnais, Teton,—the latter embracing Brulé, Sans Arcs, Blackfeet, Minneconjou, Two Kettles, Ogalala, Uncpapa), Assinaboin, Omaha, Ponca, Kaw, Osage, Quapaw, Iowa, Otoe, Missouri, Winnebago, Mandan, Gros Ventres, Crow, Tutelo, Biloxi (see MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY), Catawba and Woccon.

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, page 112.

      ALSO IN
      J. O. Dorsey,
      Migrations of Siouan Tribes
      (American Naturalist, volume 20, March)

      J. O. Dorsey,
      Biloxi Indians of Louisiana
      (V. P. address A. A. A. S., 1893)

See, above: HIDATSA.



   Six Nations.



   Skittagetan Family.

"A family designation … retained for the tribes of the Queen Charlotte Archipelago which have usually been called Haida. From a comparison of the vocabularies of the Haida language with others of the neighboring Koluschan family, Dr. Franz Boas is inclined to consider that the two are genetically related. The two languages possess a considerable number of words in common, but a more thorough investigation is requisite for the settlement of the question."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 120.



   Stockbridge Indians.

"The Stockbridge Indians were originally a part of the Housatannuck Tribe [Mohegans], to whom the Legislature of Massachusetts granted or secured a township [afterward called Stockbridge] in the year 1736. Their number was increased by Wappingers and Mohikanders, and perhaps also by Indians belonging to several other tribes, both of New England and New York. Since their removal to New Stockbridge and Brotherton, in the western parts of New York, they have been joined by Mohegans and other Indians from East Connecticut, and even from Rhode Island and Long Island."

A. Gallatin, Synopsis of Indian Tribes (Archæologia Americana, volume 2), page 35.

ALSO IN A. Holmes, Annals of America, 1736 (volume 2).

S. G. Drake, Aboriginal Races, page 15.

   Susquehannas, or Andastes, or Conestogas.

"Dutch and Swedish writers speak of a tribe called Minquas; … the French in Canada … make frequent allusions to the Gandastogués (more briefly Andastés), a tribe friendly to their allies, the Hurons, and sturdy enemies of the Iroquois; later still Pennsylvania writers speak of the Conestogas, the tribe to which Logan belonged, and the tribe which perished at the hands of the Paxton boys. Although Gallatin in his map, followed by Bancroft, placed the Andastés near Lake Erie, my researches led me to correct this, and identify the Susquehannas, Minqua, Andastés or Gandastogués, and Conestogas as being an the same tribe, the first name being apparently an appellation given them by the Virginia tribes; the second that given them by the Algonquins on the Delaware; while Gandastogué as the French, or Conestoga as the English wrote it, was their own tribal name, meaning cabin-pole men, Natio Perticarum, from 'Andasta,' a cabin-pole. … Prior to 1600 the Susquehannas and the Mohawks … came into collision, and the Susquehannas nearly exterminated the Mohawks in a war which lasted ten years." In 1647 they offered their aid to the Hurons against the Iroquois, having 1,300 warriors trained to the use of fire-arms by three Swedish soldiers: but the proposed alliance failed. During the third quarter of the 17th century they seem to have been in almost continuous war with the Five Nations, until, in 1675, they were completely overthrown. A party of about 100 retreated into Maryland and became involved there in a war with the colonists and were destroyed. "The rest of the tribe, after making overtures to Lord Baltimore, submitted to the Five Nations, and were allowed to retain their ancient grounds. When Pennsylvania was settled, they became known as Conestogas, and were always friendly to the colonists of Penn, as they had been to the Dutch and Swedes. In 1701 Canoodagtoh, their king, made a treaty with Penn, and in the document they are styled Minquas, Conestogas, or Susquehannas. They appear as a tribe in a treaty in 1742, but were dwindling away. In 1763 the feeble remnant of the tribe became involved in the general suspicion entertained by the colonists against the red men, arising out of massacres on the borders. To escape danger the poor creatures took refuge in Lancaster jail, and here they were all butchered by the Paxton boys, who burst into the place. Parkman, in his Conspiracy of Pontiac, page 414, details the sad story. The last interest of this unfortunate tribe centres in Logan, the friend of the white man, whose speech is so familiar to all, that we must regret that it has not sustained the historical scrutiny of Brantz Mayer."

(Tahgahjute; or Logan and Capt. Michael Cresap, Maryland Historical Society, May, 1851: and 8vo. Albany, 1867).

"Logan was a Conestoga, in other words a Susquehanna."

J. G. Shea, Note 46 to George Alsop's Character of the Province of Maryland (Gowan's Bibliotheca Americana, 5).








   Takilman Family.

See Note, Appendix E.

   "This name was proposed by Mr. Gatschet for a distinct
   language spoken on the coast of Oregon about the lower Rogue

      J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 121.


See above: ALLEGHANS.

   Tañoan Family.

   "The tribes of this family in the United States resided
   exclusively upon the Rio Grande and its tributary valleys from
   about 33° to about 36°."

      J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 122.



   Taranteens or Tarratines.

      See above: ABNAKIS:


"The Tarascans, so called from Taras, the name of a tribal god, had the reputation of being the tallest and handsomest people of Mexico. They were the inhabitants of the present State of Michoacan, west of the valley of Mexico. According to their oldest traditions, or perhaps those of their neighbors, they had migrated from the north in company with, or about the same time as, the Aztecs. For some 300 years before the conquest they had been a sedentary, semi-civilized people, maintaining their independence, and progressing steadily in culture. When first encountered by the Spaniards they were quite equal and in some respects ahead of the Nahuas. … In their costume the Tarascos differed considerably from their neighbors. The feather garments which they manufactured surpassed all others in durability and beauty. Cotton was, however, the usual material."

D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 136.





   Tehuel Che.








   Teutecas, or Tenez.

See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.


   Timuquanan Family.
   The Tequestas.

"Beginning at the southeast, we first meet the historic Timucua family, the tribes of which are extinct at the present time. … In the 16th century the Timucua inhabited the northern and middle portion of the peninsula of Florida, and although their exact limits to the north are unknown, they held a portion of Florida bordering on Georgia, and some of the coast islands in the Atlantic ocean. … The people received its name from one of their villages called Timagoa. … The name means 'lord,' 'ruler,' 'master' ('atimuca,' waited upon, 'muca,' by servants, 'ati'), and the people's name is written Atimuca early in the 18th century. … The languages spoken by the Calusa and by the people next in order, the Tequesta, are unknown to us. … The Calusa held the southwestern extremity of Florida, and their tribal name is left recorded in Calusahatchi, a river south of Tampa bay. … Of the Tequesta people on the southeastern end of the peninsula we know still less than of the Calusa Indians. There was a tradition that they were the same people which held the Bahama or Lucayo Islands."

A. S. Gatschet, A Migration Legend of the Creek Indians, volume 1, part 1.









   Tobacco Nation.

      See above: HURONS;





   Tonikan Family.

   "The Tonika are known to have occupied three localities:
   First, on the Lower Yazoo River (1700); second, east shore of
   Mississippi River (about 1704); third, in Avoyelles Parish,
   Louisiana (1817). Near Marksville, the county seat of that
   parish, about twenty-five are now living."

      J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 125.

   Tonkawan Family.

"The Tónkawa were a migratory people and a colluvies gentium, whose earliest habitat is unknown. Their first mention occurs in 1719; at that time and ever since they roamed in the western and southern parts of what is now Texas."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 126.


See above: APACHE GROUP.




"The first natives whom Cortes met on landing in Mexico were the Totonacos. They occupied the territory of Totonicapan, now included in the State of Vera Cruz. According to traditions of their own, they had resided there 800 years, most of which time they were independent, though a few generations before the arrival of the Spaniards they had been subjected by the arms of the Montezumas. … Sahagun describes them as almost white in color, their heads artificially deformed, but their features regular and handsome. Robes of cotton beautifully dyed served them for garments, and their feet were covered with sandals. … These people were highly civilized. Cempoalla, their capital city, was situated about five miles from the sea, at the junction of two streams. Its houses were of brick and mortar, and each was surrounded by a small garden, at the foot of which a stream of fresh water was conducted. … The affinities of the Totonacos are difficult to make out. … Their language has many words from Maya roots, but it has also many more from the Nahuatl."

D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 139.




"The first Indians with whom the Portuguese came in contact, on the discovery of Brazil, called themselves Tupinama, a term derived by Barnhagen from Tupi and Mba, something like warrior or nobleman; by Martius from Tupi and Anamba (relative) with the signification 'belonging to the Tupi tribe.' These Tupi dwell on the east coast of Brazil, and with their language the Portuguese were soon familiar. It was found especially serviceable as a means of communication with other tribes, and this led the Jesuits later to develop it as much as possible, and introduce it as a universal language of intercourse with the Savages. Thus the 'lingua geral Brasilica' arose, which must be regarded as a Tupi with a Portuguese pronunciation. The result was a surprising one, for it really succeeded in forming, for the tribes of Brazil, divided in language, a universal means of communication. Without doubt the wide extent of the Tupi was very favorable, especially since on this side of the Andes, as far as the Caribbean Sea, the continent of South America was overrun with Tupi hordes. … Von Martius has endeavored to trace their various migrations and abodes, by which they have acquired a sort of ubiquity in tropical South America. … This history … leads to the supposition that, had the discovery been delayed a few centuries, the Tupi might have become the lords of eastern South America, and have spread a higher culture over that region. The Tupi family may be divided, according to their fixed abodes, into the southern, northern, eastern, western, and central Tupi; all these are again divided into a number of smaller tribes. The southern Tupi are usually called Guarani (warriors), a name which the Jesuits first introduced. It cannot be determined from which direction they came. The greatest number are in Paraguay and the Argentine province of Corrientes. The Jesuits brought them to a very high degree of civilization. The eastern Tupi, the real Tupinamba, are scattered along the Atlantic coast from St. Catherina Island to the mouth of the Amazon. They are a very weak tribe. They say they came from the south and west. The northern Tupi are a weak and widely scattered remnant of a large tribe, and are now in the province of Para, on the island of Marajo, and along both banks of the Amazon. … It is somewhat doubtful if this peaceable tribe are really Tupi. … The central Tupi live in several free hordes between the Tocantins and Madeira. … Cutting off the heads of enemies is in vogue among them. … The Mundrucu are especially the head-hunting tribe. The western Tupi all live in Bolivia. They are the only ones who came in contact with the Inca empire, and their character and manners show the influence of this. Some are a picture of idyllic gayety and patriarchal mildness."

The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor) volume 6, pages 248-249.

"In frequent contiguity with the Tupis was another stock, also widely dispersed through Brazil, called the Tupuyas, of whom the Botocudos in eastern Brazil are the most prominent tribe. To them also belong the Ges nations, south of the lower Amazon, and others. They are on a low grade of culture, going quite naked, not cultivating the soil, ignorant of pottery, and with poorly made canoes. They are dolichocephalic, and must have inhabited the country a long time."

D. G. Brinton, Races and Peoples, pages 269-270.



See above: CHIBCHAS.





   Twightwees, or Miamis.

See above: ILLINOIS.

   Two Kettles.




   Uchean Family.

"The pristine homes of the Yuchi are not now traceable with any degree of certainty. The Yuchi are supposed to have been visited by De Soto during his memorable march, and the town of Cofitachiqui chronicled by him, is believed by many investigators to have stood at Silver Bluff, on the left bank of the Savannah, about 25 miles below Augusta. If, as is supposed by some authorities, Cofitachiqui was a Yuchi town, this would locate the Yuchi in a section which, when first known to the whites, was occupied by the Shawnee. Later the Yuchi appear to have lived somewhat farther down the Savannah."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 126.







   Upsarokas, or Absarokas, or Crows.




   Wabenakies, or Abnakis.

See above: ABNAKIS.

   Wacos, or Huecos.




   Waiilatpuan Family.

"Hale established this family and placed under it the Cailloux or Cayuse or Willetpoos, and the Molele. Their headquarters as indicated by Hale are the upper part of the Walla Walla River and the country about Mounts Hood and Vancouver."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 127.



   Wakashan Family.

"The above family name was based upon a vocabulary of the Wakash Indians, who, according to Gallatin, 'inhabit the island on which Nootka Sound is situated.' … The term 'Wakash' for this group of languages has since been generally ignored, and in its place Nootka or Nootka-Columbian has been adopted. … Though by no means as appropriate a designation as could be found, it seems clear that for the so-called Wakash, Newittee, and other allied languages usually assembled under the Nootka family, the term Wakash of 1836 has priority and must be retained."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, pages 129-130.

   Wampanoags, or Pokanokets.

See above: POKANOKETS.









    Washoan Family.

   "This family is represented by a single well known tribe,
   whose range extended from Reno, on the line of the Central
   Pacific Railroad, to the lower end of Carson Valley."

      J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 131.

   Wichitas, or Pawnee Picts.




   Wishoskan Family.

"This is a small and obscure linguistic family and little is known concerning the dialects composing it or of the tribes which speak it. … The area occupied by the tribes speaking dialects of this language was the coast from a little below the mouth of Eel River to a little north of Mad River, including particularly the country about Humboldt Bay."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 133.






See above: HURONS.

Yamasis and Yamacraws.



See above: ANDESIANS.

   Yanan Family.

"The eastern boundary of the Yanan territory is formed by a range of mountains a little west of Lassen Butte and terminating near Pit River; the northern boundary by a line running from northeast to southwest, passing near the northern side of Round Mountain, three miles from Pit River. The western boundary from Redding southward is on an average 10 miles to the east of the Sacramento. North of Redding it averages double that distance or about 20 miles."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 135.

   Yanktons and Yanktonnais.


   Yncas, or Incas.





See above: ANDESIANS.

   Yukian Family.

"Round Valley, California, subsequently made a reservation to receive the Yuki and other tribes, was formerly the chief seat of the tribes of the family, but they also extended across the mountains to the coast."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 136.

   Yuman Family.

   "The center of distribution of the tribes of this family is
   generally considered to be the lower Colorado and Gila

      J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 137.

See above: APACHE GROUP.



   Yuroks or Eurocs.

See above: MODOCS, &c.


See above: ANDESIANS.

   Zapotecs, Mixtecs, Zoques, Mixes, etc.

   "The greater part of Gaxaca [Mexico] and the neighboring
   regions are still occupied by the Zapytees, who call
   themselves Didja-za. There are now about 265,000 of them,
   about 50,000 of whom speak nothing but their native tongue. In
   ancient times they constituted a powerful independent state,
   the citizens of which seem to have been quite as highly
   civilized as any member of the Aztec family. They were
   agricultural and sedentary, living in villages and
   constructing buildings of stone and mortar.
   The most remarkable, but by no means the only, specimens of
   these still remaining are the ruins of Mitla. … The Mixtecs
   adjoined the Zapotecs to the west, extending along the coast
   of the Pacific to about the present port of Acapulco. In
   culture they were equal to the Zapotecs. … The mountain
   regions of the isthmus of Tehuantepec and the adjacent
   portions of the states of Chiapas and Oaxaca are the habitats
   of the Zoques, Mixes, and allied tribes. The early historians
   draw a terrible picture of their valor, savagery and
   cannibalism, which reads more like tales to deter the
   Spaniards from approaching their domains than truthful
   accounts. However this may be, they have been for hundreds of
   years a peaceful, ignorant, timid part of the population,
   homely, lazy and drunken. … The faint traditions of these
   peoples pointed to the South for their origin. … The
   Chinantecs inhabited Chinantla, which is a part of the state
   of Oaxaca. … The Chinantecs had been reduced by the Aztecs
   and severely oppressed by them. Hence they welcomed the
   Spaniards as deliverers. … Other names by which they are
   mentioned are Tenez and Teutecas. … In speaking of the
   province of Chiapas the historian Herrera informs us that it
   derived its name from the pueblo so-called, 'whose inhabitants
   were the most remarkable in New Spain for their traits and
   inclinations.' They had early acquired the art of
   horsemanship, they were skillful in all kinds of music,
   excellent painters, carried on a variety of arts, and were
   withal very courteous to each other. One tradition was that
   they had reached Chiapas from Nicaragua. … But the more
   authentic legend of the Chapas or Chapanecs, as they were
   properly called from their totemic bird the Chapa, the red
   macaw, recited that the whole stock moved down from a northern
   latitude, following down the Pacific coast until they came to
   Soconusco, where they divided, one part entering the mountains
   of Chiapas, the other proceeding on to Nicaragua."

      D. G. Brinton,
      The American Race,
      pages 140-146.

      ALSO IN
      A. Bandelier,
      Report of Archæological Tour in Mexico.


See above: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

   Zuñian Family.

   "Derivation: From the Cochiti term Suinyi, said to mean 'the
   people of the long nails,' referring to the surgeons of Zuñi
   who always wear some of their nails very long (Cushing)."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 138.




      and after.

      Statistics of. See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (MAY).







AMHERST, Lord, The Indian Administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.


See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1758 to 1760.



AMIDA, Sieges of.

The ancient city of Amida, now Diarbekr, on the right bank of the Upper Tigris was thrice taken by the Persians from the Romans, in the course of the long wars between the two nations. In the first instance, A. D. 359, it fell after a terrible siege of seventy-three days, conducted by the Persian king Sapor in person, and was given up to pillage and slaughter, the Roman commanders crucified and the few surviving inhabitants dragged to Persia as slaves. The town was then abandoned by the Persians, repeopled by the Romans and recovered its prosperity and strength, only to pass through a similar experience again in 502 A. D., when it was besieged for eighty days by the Persian king Kobad, carried by storm, and most of its inhabitants slaughtered or enslaved. A century later, A. D. 605, Chosroes took Amida once more, but with less violence.

G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapters 9, 19 and 24.

See, also, PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

   Origin of name.


AMIENS: A. D. 1597.
   Surprise by the Spaniards.
   Recovery by Henry IV.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

AMIENS: A. D. 1870.
   Taken by the Germans.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

—————AMIENS: End—————

AMIENS, The Mise of.


AMIENS, Treaty of (1527).
   Negotiated by Cardinal Wolsey, between Henry VIII. of England
   and Francis I. of France, establishing an alliance against the
   Emperor, Charles V. The treaty was sealed and sworn to in the
   cathedral church at Amiens, Aug. 18, 1527.

J. S. Brewer, Reign of Henry VIII., volume 2, chapters 26 and 28.

AMIENS, Treaty of (1801).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

AMIN AL, Caliph, A. D. 809-813.

   An Arabian title, signifying chief or ruler.

   The ancient name of the river Ems.

AMISUS, Siege of.

The siege of Amisus by Lucullus was one of the important operations of the Third Mithridatic war. The city was on the coast of the Black Sea, between the rivers Halys and Lycus; it is represented in site by the modern town of Samsoon. Amisus, which was besieged in 73 B. C. held out until the following year. Tyrannio the grammarian was among the prisoners taken and sent to Rome.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 3, chapters 1 and 2.

   This is the title of the Mayor or President of the Swiss Communal
   Council or Gemeinderath.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

AMMON, The Temple and Oracle of.

The Ammonium or Oasis of Ammon, in the Libyan desert, which was visited by Alexander the Great, has been identified with the oasis now known as the Oasis of Siwah. "The Oasis of Siwah was first visited and described by Browne in 1792; and its identity with that of Ammon fully established by Major Rennell ('Geography of Herodotus,' pages 577-591). … The site of the celebrated temple and oracle of Ammon was first discovered by Mr. Hamilton in 1853." "Its famous oracle was frequently visited by Greeks from Cyrene, as well as from other parts of the Hellenic world, and it vied in reputation with those of Delphi and Dodona."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 8, section 1, and chapter 12, section 1, and note E.

An expedition of 50,000 men sent by Cambyses to Ammon, B. C. 525, is said to have perished in the desert, to the last man.

See EGYPT: B. C. 525-332.



According to the narrative in Genesis xix: 30-39, the Ammonites were descended from Ben-Ammi, son of Lot's second daughter, as the Moabites came from Moab, the eldest daughter's son. The two people are much associated in Biblical history. "It is hard to avoid the conclusion that, while Moab was the settled and civilized half of the nation of Lot, the Bene Ammon formed its predatory and Bedouin section."

      G. Grove,
      Dictionary of the Bible.

      also, MOABITES.


See FLORENCE: A. D. 1358.




See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.


The Byzantine Emperor, Theophilus, in war with the Saracens, took and destroyed, with peculiar animosity, the town of Zapetra or Sozopetra, in Syria, which happened to be the birthplace of the reigning caliph, Motassem, son of Haroun Alraschid. The caliph had condescended to intercede for the place, and his enemy's conduct was personally insulting to him, as well as atrociously inhumane. To avenge the outrage he invaded Asia Minor, A. D. 838, at the head of an enormous army, with the special purpose of destroying the birthplace of Theophilus. The unfortunate town which suffered that distinction was Amorinm in Phrygia,—whence the ensuing war was called the Amorian War. Attempting to defend Amorinm in the field, the Byzantines were hopelessly defeated, and the doomed city was left to its fate. It made an heroic resistance for fifty-five days, and the siege is said to have cost the caliph 70,000 men. But he entered the place at last with a merciless sword, and left a heap of ruins for the monument of his revenge.

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


"The Hittites and Amorites were … mingled together in the mountains of Palestine like the two races which ethnologists tell us go to form the modern Kelt. But the Egyptian monuments teach us that they were of very different origin and character. The Hittites were a people with yellow skins and 'Mongoloid' features, whose receding foreheads, oblique eyes, and protruding upper jaws, are represented as faithfully on their own monuments as they are on those of Egypt, so that we cannot accuse the Egyptian artists of caricaturing their enemies. If the Egyptians have made the Hittites ugly, it was because they were so in reality. The Amorites, on the contrary, were a tall and handsome people. They are depicted with white skins, blue eyes, and reddish hair, all the characteristics, in fact, of the white race. Mr. Petrie points out their resemblance to the Dardanians of Asia Minor, who form an intermediate link between the white-skinned tribes of the Greek seas and the fair-complexioned Libyans of Northern Africa. The latter are still found in large numbers in the mountainous regions which stretch eastward from Morocco, and are usually known among the French under the name of Kabyles. The traveller who first meets with them in Algeria cannot fail to be struck by their likeness to a certain part of the population in the British Isles. Their clear-white freckled skins, their blue eyes, their golden-red hair and tall stature, remind him of the fair Kelts of an Irish village; and when we find that their skulls, which are of the so-called dolichocephalic or 'long-headed' type, are the same as the skulls discovered in the prehistoric cromlechs of the country they still inhabit, we may conclude that they represent the modern descendants of the white-skinned Libyans of the Egyptian monuments. In Palestine also we still come across representatives of a fair-complexioned blue-eyed race in whom we may see the descendants of the ancient Amorites, just as we see in the Kabyles the descendants of the ancient Libyans. We know that the Amorite type continued to exist in Judah long after the Israelitish conquest of Canaan. The captives taken from the southern cities of Judah br Shishak in the time of Rehoboam, and depicted by him upon the walls of the great temple of Karnak, are people of Amorite origin. Their 'regular profile of sub-aquiline cast,' as Mr. Tomkins describes it, their high cheek-bones and martial expression, are the features of the Amorites, and not of the Jews. Tallness of stature has always been a distinguishing characteristic of the white race. Hence it was that the Anakim, the Amorite inhabitants of Hebron, seemed to the Hebrew spies to be as giants, while they themselves were but 'as grasshoppers' by, the side of them (Numbers xiii: 33). After the Israelitish invasion remnants of the Anakim were left in Gaza and Gath and Ashkelon (Joshua xi: 22). and in the time of David, Goliath of Gath and his gigantic family were objects of dread to their neighbors (2 Samuel xxi: 15-22). It is clear, then, that the Amorites of Canaan belonged to the same white race as the Libyans of Northern Africa, and like them preferred the mountains to the hot plains and valleys below. The Libyans themselves belonged to a race which can be traced through the peninsula of Spain and the western side of France into the British Isles. Now it is curious that wherever this particular branch of the white race has extended it has been accompanied by a particular form of cromlech, or sepulchral chamber built of large uncut stones. … It has been necessary to enter at this length into what has been discovered concerning the Amorites by recent research, in order to show how carefully they should be distinguished from the Hittites with whom they afterwards intermingled. They must have been in possession of Palestine long before the Hittites arrived there. They extended over a much wider area."

A. H. Sayce, The Hittites, chapter 1.


   "An Amphiktyonic, or, more correctly, an Amphiktionic, body
   was an assembly of the tribes who dwelt around any famous
   temple, gathered together to manage the affairs of that
   temple. There were other Amphiktyonic Assemblies in Greece
   [besides that of Delphi], amongst which that of the isle of
   Kalaureia, off the coast of Argolis, was a body of some
   celebrity. The Amphiktyons of Delphi obtained greater
   importance than any other Amphiktyons only because of the
   greater importance of the Delphic sanctuary, and because it
   incidentally happened that the greater part of the Greek
   nation had some kind of representation among them.
   But that body could not be looked upon as a perfect
   representation of the Greek nation which, to postpone other
   objections to its constitution, found no place for so large a
   fraction of the Hellenic body as the Arkadians. Still the
   Amphiktyons of Delphi undoubtedly came nearer than any other
   existing body to the character of a general representation of
   all Greece. It is therefore easy to understand how the
   religious functions of such a body might incidentally assume a
   political character. … Once or twice then, in the course of
   Grecian history, we do find the Amphiktyonic body acting with
   real dignity in the name of united Greece. … Though the list
   of members of the Council is given with some slight variations
   by different authors, all agree in making the constituent
   members of the union tribes and not cities. The
   representatives of the Ionic and Doric races sat and voted as
   single members, side by side with the representatives of petty
   peoples like the Magnêsians and Phthiôtic Achaians. When the
   Council was first formed, Dorians and Ionians were doubtless
   mere tribes of northern Greece, and the prodigious development
   of the Doric and Ionic races in after times made no difference
   in its constitution. … The Amphiktyonic Council was not
   exactly a diplomatic congress, but it was much more like a
   diplomatic congress than it was like the governing assembly of
   any commonwealth, kingdom, or federation. The Pylagoroi and
   Hieromnêmones were not exactly Ambassadors, but they were much
   more like Ambassadors than they were like members of a British
   Parliament or even an American Congress. … The nearest
   approach to the Amphiktyonic Council in modern times would be
   if the College of Cardinals were to consist of members chosen
   by the several Roman Catholic nations of Europe and America."

E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government, volume 1, chapter 3.




This town in Macedonia, occupying an important situation on the eastern bank of the river Strymon, just below a small lake into which it widens near its mouth, was originally called "The Nine Ways," and was the scene of a horrible human sacrifice made by Xerxes on his march into Greece.

Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 15.

It was subsequently taken by the Athenians, B. C. 437, and made a capital city by them [see ATHENS: B. C. 440-437], dominating the surrounding district, its name being changed to Amphipolis. During the Peloponnesian War (B. C. 424), the able Lacedæmonian general, Brasidas, led a small army into Macedonia and succeeded in capturing Amphipolis, which caused great dismay and discouragement at Athens. Thucydides, the historian, was one of the generals held responsible for the disaster and he was driven as a consequence into the fortunate exile which produced the composition of his history. Two years later the Athenian demagogue-leader, Cleon, took command of an expedition sent to recover Amphipolis and other points in Macedonia and Thrace. It was disastrously beaten and Cleon was killed, but Brasidas fell likewise in the battle. Whether Athens suffered more from her defeat than Sparta from her victory is a question.

Thucydides, History, book 4, section 102-135; book 5, section 1-11.

See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 466-454, and GREECE: B. C. 424-421.

Amphipolis was taken by Philip of Macedon, B. C. 358.

See GREECE: B. C. 359-358.

AMPHISSA, Siege and Capture by Philip of Macedon (B. C. 339-338).

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.


"There was hardly a town in the [Roman] empire which had not an amphitheatre large enough to contain vast multitudes of spectators. The savage excitement of gladiatorial combats seems to have been almost necessary to the Roman legionaries in their short intervals of inaction, and was the first recreation for which they provided in the places where they were stationed. … Gladiatorial combats were held from early times in the Forum, and wild beasts hunted in the Circus; but until Curio built his celebrated double theatre of wood, which could be made into an amphitheatre by turning the two semi-circular portions face to face, we have no record of any special building in the peculiar form afterwards adopted. It may have been, therefore, that Curio's mechanical contrivance first suggested the elliptical shape. … As specimens of architecture, the amphitheatres are more remarkable for the mechanical skill and admirable adaptation to their purpose displayed in them, than for any beauty of shape or decoration. The hugest of all, the Coliseum, was ill-proportioned and unpleasing in its lines when entire."

R. Burn, Rome and the Campagna, introduction.


"The [Roman] unit of capacity was the Amphora or Quadrantal, which contained a cubic foot … equal to 5.687 imperial gallons, or 5 gallons, 2 quarts, 1 pint, 2 gills, nearly. The Amphora was the unit for both liquid and dry measures, but the latter was generally referred to the Modius, which contained one-third of an Amphora. … The Culeus was equal to 20 Amphoræ."

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 13.



   The rise of the city.

"In 1205 a low and profitless marsh upon the coast of Holland, not far from the confines of Utrecht, had been partially drained by a dam raised upon the hitherto squandered stream of the Amstel. Near this dam a few huts were tenanted by poor men who earned a scanty livelihood by fishing in the Zuyder Sea; but so uninviting seemed that barren and desolate spot, that a century later Amstel-dam was still an obscure seafaring town, or rather hamlet. Its subsequent progress was more rapid. The spirit of the land was stirring within it, and every portion of it thrilled with new energy and life. Some of the fugitive artizans from Flanders saw in the thriving village safety and peace, and added what wealth they had, and, what was better, their manufacturing intelligence and skill, to the humble hamlet's store. Amsteldam was early admitted to the fellowship of the Hanse League; and, in 1342, having outgrown its primary limits, required to be enlarged. For this an expensive process, that of driving piles into the swampy plain, was necessary; and to this circumstance, no doubt, it is owing that the date of each successive enlargement has been so accurately recorded."

W. T. McCullagh, Industrial History of Three Nations, volume 2, chapter 9.



      and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (NORWAY): A. D. 1814-1815.

AMURATH I., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1359-1389.
   Amurath II., A. D. 1421-1451.
   Amurath III., A. D. 1574-1595.
   Amurath IV., A. D. 1623-1640.

   The Silence of.

Amyclæ was the chief city of Laconia while that district of Peloponnesus was occupied by the Achæans, before the Doric invasion and before the rise of Sparta. It maintained its independence against the Doric Spartans for a long period, but succumbed at length under circumstances which gave rise to a proverbial saying among the Greeks concerning "the silence of Amyclæ." "The peace of Amyclæ, we are told, had been so often disturbed by false alarms of the enemy's approach, that at length a law was passed forbidding such reports, and the silent city was taken by surprise."

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 7.



AN, The City of.

See ON.


"Münster is a town in Westphalia, the seat of a bishop, walled round, with a noble cathedral and many churches; but there is one peculiarity about Münster that distinguishes it from all other old German towns; it has not one old church spire in it. Once it had a great many. How comes it that it now has none? In Münster lived a draper, Knipperdolling by name, who was much excited over the doctrines of Luther, and he gathered many people in his house, and spoke to them bitter words against the Pope, the bishops, and the clergy. The bishop at this time was Francis of Waldeck, a man much inclined himself to Lutheranism; indeed, later, he proposed to suppress Catholicism in the diocese, as he wanted to seize on it and appropriate it as a possession to his family. Moreover, in 1544, he joined the Protestant princes in a league against the Catholics; but he did not want things to move too fast, lest he should not be able to secure the wealthy See as personal property. Knipperdolling got a young priest, named Rottmann, to preach in one of the churches against the errors of Catholicism, and he was a man of such fiery eloquence that he stirred up a mob which rushed through the town, wrecking the churches. The mob became daily more daring and threatening. They drove the priests out of the town, and some of the wealthy citizens fled, not knowing what would follow. The bishop would have yielded to all the religious innovations if the rioters had not threatened his temporal position and revenue. In 1532 the pastor, Rottmann, began to preach against the baptism of infants. Luther wrote to him remonstrating, but in vain. The bishop was not in the town; he was at Minden, of which See he was bishop as well. Finding that the town was in the hands of Knipperdolling and Rottmann, who were confiscating the goods of the churches, and excluding those who would not agree with their opinions, the bishop advanced to the place at the head of some soldiers. Münster closed its gates against him. Negotiations were entered into; the Landgrave of Hesse was called in as pacificator, and articles of agreement were drawn up and signed. Some of the churches were given to the Lutherans, but the Cathedral was reserved for the Catholics, and the Lutherans were forbidden to molest the latter, and disturb their religious services. The news of the conversion of the city of Münster to the gospel spread, and strangers came to it from all parts. Among these was a tailor of Leyden, called John Bockelson. Rottmann now threw up his Lutheranism and proclaimed himself opposed to many of the doctrines which Luther still retained. Amongst other things he rejected was infant baptism. This created a split among the reformed in Münster, and the disorders broke out afresh. The mob now fell on the cathedral and drove the Catholics from it, and would not permit them to worship in it. They also invaded the Lutheran churches, and filled them with uproar. On the evening of January 28, 1534, the Anabaptists stretched chains across the streets, assembled in armed bands, closed the gates and placed sentinels in all directions. When day dawned there appeared suddenly two men dressed like Prophets, with long ragged beards and flowing mantles, staff in hand, who paced through the streets solemnly in the midst of the crowd, who bowed before them and saluted them as Enoch and Elias. These men were John Bockelson, the tailor, and one John Mattheson, head of the Anabaptists of Holland. Knipperdolling at once associated himself with them, and shortly the place was a scene of the wildest ecstacies. Men and women ran about the streets screaming and leaping, and crying out that they saw visions of angels with swords drawn urging them on to the extermination of Lutherans and Catholics alike. … A great number of citizens were driven out, on a bitter day, when the land was covered with snow. Those who lagged were beaten; those who were sick were carried to the market-place and re-baptized by Rottmann. … This was too much to be borne. The bishop raised an army and marched against the city. Thus began a siege which was to last sixteen months, during which a multitude of untrained fanatics, commanded by a Dutch tailor, held out against a numerous and well-armed force. Thenceforth the city was ruled by divine revelations, or rather, by the crazes of the diseased brains of the prophets. One day they declared that all the officers and magistrates were to be turned out of their offices, and men nominated by themselves were to take their places; another day Mattheson said it was revealed to him that every book in the town except the Bible was to be destroyed; accordingly all the archives and libraries were collected in the market-place and burnt. Then it was revealed to him that all the spires were to be pulled down; so the church towers were reduced to stumps, from which the enemy could be watched and whence cannon could play on them. One day he declared he had been ordered by Heaven to go forth, with promise of victory, against the besiegers. He dashed forth at the head of a large band, but was surrounded and he and his band slain. The death of Mattheson struck dismay into the hearts of the Anabaptists, but John Bockelson took advantage of the moment to establish himself as head. He declared that it was revealed to him that Mattheson had been killed because he had disobeyed the heavenly command, which was to go forth with few. Instead of that he had gone with many. {112} Bockelson said he had been ordered in vision to marry Mattheson's widow and assume his place. It was further revealed to him that Münster was to be the heavenly Zion, the capital of the earth, and he was to be king over it. … Then he had another revelation that every man was to have as many wives as he liked, and he gave himself sixteen wives. This was too outrageous for some to endure, and a plot was formed against him by a blacksmith and about 200 of the more respectable citizens, but it was frustrated and led to the seizure of the conspirators and the execution of a number of them. … At last, on midsummer eve, 1536, after a siege of sixteen months, the city was taken. Several of the citizens, unable longer to endure the tyranny, cruelty and abominations committed by the king, helped the soldiers of the prince-bishop to climb the walls, open the gates, and surprise the city. A desperate hand-to-hand fight ensued; the streets ran with blood. John Bockelson, instead of leading his people, hid himself, but was caught. So was Knipperdolling. When the place was in his hands the prince-bishop entered. John of Leyden and Knipperdolling were cruelly tortured, their flesh plucked off with red-hot pincers, and then a dagger was thrust into their hearts. Finally, their bodies were hung in iron cages to the tower of a church in Münster. Thus ended this hideous drama, which produced an indescribable effect throughout Germany. Münster, after this, in spite of the desire of the prince-bishop to establish Lutheranism, reverted to Catholicism, and remains Catholic to this day."

S. Baring-Gould, The Story of Germany, chapter 36.

      ALSO IN
      S. Baring-Gould,
      Historic Oddities and Strange Events,
      2d Series.

L. von Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany, book 6, chapter 9 (volume 3).

C. Beard, The Reformation (Hibbert Lectures., 1883), lecture 6.


"The word Anahuac signifies 'near the water.' It was, probably, first applied to the country around the lakes in the Mexican Valley, and gradually extended to the remoter regions occupied by the Aztecs, and the other semi-civilized races. Or, possibly, the name may have been intended, as Veytia suggests (Historical Antiquities, lib. 1, cap. 1), to denote the land between the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific."

W. B. Prescott, Conquest of Mexico, book 1, chapter 1, note 11.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.





ANAPA: A. D. 1828.
   Siege and Capture.
   Cession to Russia.

See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.


"The anarchists are … a small but determined band. … Although their programme may be found almost word for word in Proudhon, they profess to follow more closely Bakounine, the Russian nihilist, who separated himself from Marx and the Internationals, and formed secret societies in Spain, Switzerland, France, and elsewhere, and thus propagated nihilistic views; for anarchy and nihilism are pretty much one and the same thing when nihilism is understood in the older, stricter sense, which does not include, as it does in a larger and more modern sense, those who are simply political and constitutional reformers. Like prince Krapotkine, Bakounine came of an old and prominent Russian family; like him, he revolted against the cruelties and injustices he saw about him; like him, he despaired of peaceful reform, and concluded that no great improvement could be expected until all our present political, economic, and social institutions were so thoroughly demolished that of the old structure not one stone should be left on another. Out of the ruins a regenerated world might arise. We must be purged as by fire. Like all anarchists and true nihilists, he was a thorough pessimist, as far as our present manner of life was concerned. Reaction against conservatism carried him very far. He wished to abolish private property, state, and inheritance. Equality is to be carried so far that all must wear the same kind of clothing, no difference being made even for sex. Religion is an aberration of the brain, and should be abolished. Fire, dynamite, and assassination are approved of by at least a large number of the party. They are brave men, and fight for their faith with the devotion of martyrs. Imprisonment and death are counted but as rewards. … Forty-seven anarchists signed a declaration of principles, which was read by one of their number at their trial at Lyons. … 'We wish liberty [they declared] and we believe its existence incompatible with the existence of any power whatsoever, whatever its origin and form—whether it be selected or imposed, monarchical or republican—whether inspired by divine right or by popular right, by anointment or universal suffrage. … The best governments are the worst. The substitution, in a word, in human relations, of free contract perpetually revisable and dissoluble, is our ideal.'"

H. T. Ely, French and German Socialism in Modern Times, chapter 8.

"In anarchism we have the extreme antithesis of socialism and communism. The socialist desires so to extend the sphere of the state that it shall embrace all the more important concerns of life. The communist, at least of the older school, would make the sway of authority and the routine which follows therefrom universal. The anarchist, on the other hand, would banish all forms of authority and have only a system of the most perfect liberty. The anarchist is an extreme individualist. … Anarchism, as a social theory, was first elaborately formulated by Proudhon. In the first part of his work, 'What is Property?' he briefly stated the doctrine and gave it the name 'anarchy,' absence of a master or sovereign. … About 12 years before Proudhon published his views, Josiah Warren reached similar conclusions in America."

H. L. Osgood, Scientific Anarchism (Political Science Quarterly, March, 1889), pages 1-2.

See, also, NIHILISM.

ANARCHISTS, The Chicago.

See Chicago: A. D. 1886-1887.

ANASTASIUS I., Roman Emperor (Eastern.) A. D. 491-518.

ANASTASIUS II., A. D. 713-716.

ANASTASIUS III., Pope, A. D. 911-913

ANASTASIUS IV., Pope., A. D. 1153-1154.




A tribe of ancient Britons whose home was near the Thames.

ANCASTER, Origin of.




"The fertile and peaceable lowlands of England … offered few spots sufficiently wild and lonely for the habitation of a hermit; those, therefore, who wished to retire from the world into a more strict and solitary life than that which the monastery afforded were in the habit of immuring themselves, as anchorites, or in old English 'Ankers,' in little cells of stone, built usually against the wall of a church. There is nothing new under the sun; and similar anchorites might have been seen in Egypt, 500 years before the time of St. Antony, immured in cells in the temples of Isis or Serapis. It is only recently that antiquaries have discovered how common this practice was in England, and how frequently the traces of these cells are to be found about our parish churches."

C. Kingsley, The Hermits, page 329.

The term anchorites is applied, generally, to all religious ascetics who lived in solitary cells.

J. Bingham, Antiquity of the Christian Church, book 7, chapter 1, section 4.

"The essential difference between an anker or anchorite and a hermit appears to have been that, whereas the former passed his whole life shut up in a cell, the latter, although leading indeed a solitary life, wandered about at liberty."

R. R. Sharpe, Introduction to "Calendar of Wills in the Court of Husting, London," volume 2, page xxi.


The political and social system in France that was destroyed by the Revolution of 1789 is commonly referred to as the "ancien régime." Some writers translate this in the literal English form—"the ancient regime;" others render it more appropriately, perhaps, the "old regime." Its special application is to the state of things described under FRANCE: A. D. 1789.

ANCIENTS, The Council of the.


ANCRUM, Battle of.

A success obtained by the Scots over an English force making an incursion into the border districts of their country A. D. 1544.

      J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 35 (volume 3).

   The name.

"The Vandals, … though they passed altogether out of Spain, have left their name to this day in its southern part, under the form of Andalusia, a name which, under the Saracen conquerors, spread itself over the whole peninsula."

E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe, chapter 4, section 3.

See, also: VANDALS: A. D. 428.

Roughly speaking, Andalusia represents the country known to the ancients, first, as Tartessus, and, later, as Turdetania.





   The ancient name of the city of Angers, France, and of the
   tribe which occupied that region.



A great forest which anciently stretched across Surrey, Sussex and into Kent (southeastern England) was called Anderida Sylva by the Romans and Andredswald by the Saxons. It coincided nearly with the tract of country called in modern times the Weald of Kent, to which it gave its name of the Wald or Weald. On the southern coast-border of the Anderida Sylva the Romans established the important fortress and port of Anderida, which has been identified with modern Pevensey. Here the Romano-Britons made an obstinate stand against the Saxons, in the fifth century, and Anderida was only taken by Ælle after a long siege. In the words of the Chronicle, the Saxons "slew all that were therein, nor was there henceforth one Briton left."

J. R. Green, The Making of England, chapter 1.

ALSO IN T. Wright, Celt, Roman, and Saxon, chapter 5.

ANDERSON, Major Robert.
   Defense of Fort Sumter.








ANDRE, Major John, The Capture and execution of.


ANDREW I., King of Hungary, A. D. 1046-1060.
ANDREW II., King of Hungary, A. D. 1204-1235.
ANDREW III., King of Hungary, A. D. 1290-1301.

ANDRONICUS I., Emperor in the East (Byzantine or Greek), A. D. 1183-1185.

Andronicus II. (Palæologus), Greek Emperor of Constantinople, A.
D. 1282-1328.

Andronicus III. (Palæologus), A. D. 1328-1341.

ANDROS, Governor, New England and New York under.

      NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686;
      MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686;
      and 1686-1689;
      NEW YORK: A. D. 1688;
      and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.

ANDROS, Battle of (B. C. 407).

See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.



ANGERS, Origin of.



See ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189.

ANGHIARI, Battle of (1425).

See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.


   The mention of the Angles by Tacitus is in the following,
   passage: "Next [to the Langobardi] come the Reudigni, the
   Aviones, the Anglii, the Varini, the Eudoses, the Suardones,
   and Nuithones, who are fenced in by rivers or forests. None of
   these tribes have any noteworthy feature, except their common
   worship of Ertha, or mother-Earth, and their belief that she
   interposes in human affairs, and visits the nations in her
   car. In an island of the ocean there is a sacred grove, and
   within it a consecrated chariot, covered over with a garment.
   Only one priest is permitted to touch it. He can perceive the
   presence of the goddess in this sacred recess, and walks by
   her side with the utmost reverence as she is drawn along by
   heifers. It is a season of rejoicing, and festivity reigns
   wherever she deigns to go and be received. They do not go to
   battle or wear arms; every weapon is under lock; peace and
   quiet are welcomed only at these times, till the goddess,
   weary of human intercourse, is at length restored by the same
   priest to her temple. Afterwards the car, the vestments, and,
   if you like to believe it, the divinity herself, are purified
   in a secret lake. Slaves perform the rite, who are instantly
   swallowed up by its waters. Hence arises a mysterious terror
   and a pious ignorance concerning the nature of that which is
   seen only by men doomed to die.
   This branch indeed of the Suevi stretches into the
   remoter regions of Germany."

Tacitus, Germany; translated by Church and Brodribb, chapter 40.

"In close neighbourhood with the Saxons in the middle of the fourth century were the Angli, a tribe whose origin is more uncertain and the application of whose name is still more a matter of question. If the name belongs, in the pages of the several geographers, to the same nation, it was situated in the time of Tacitus east of the Elbe; in the time of Ptolemy it was found on the middle Elbe, between the Thuringians to the south and the Varini to the north; and at a later period it was forced, perhaps by the growth of the Thuringian power, into the neck of the Cimbric peninsula. It may, however, be reasonably doubted whether this hypothesis is sound, and it is by no means clear whether, if it be so, the Angli were not connected more closely with the Thuringians than with the Saxons. To the north of the Angli, after they had reached their Schleswig home, were the Jutes, of whose early history we know nothing, except their claims to be regarded as kinsmen of the Goths and the close similarity between their descendants and the neighbour Frisians."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, volume 1, chapter 3.

"Important as are the Angles, it is not too much to say that they are only known through their relations to us of England, their descendants; indeed, without this paramount fact, they would be liable to be confused with the Frisians, with the Old Saxons, and with even Slavonians. This is chiefly because there is no satisfactory trace or fragment of the Angles of Germany within Germany; whilst the notices of the other writers of antiquity tell us as little as the one we find in Tacitus. And this notice is not only brief but complicated. … I still think that the Angli of Tacitus were—1: The Angles of England; 2: Occupants of the northern parts of Hanover; 3: At least in the time of Tacitus; 4: And that to the exclusion of any territory in Holstein, which was Frisian to the west, and Slavonic to the east. Still the question is one of great magnitude and numerous complications."

      R. G. Latham,
      The Germany of Tacitus;
      section 49.

      ALSO IN
      J. M. Lappenberg,
      History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings,
      volume 1, pages 89-95.

See, also, AVIONES, and SAXONS.

The conquests and settlements of the Jutes and the Angles in Britain are described under ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473. and 547-633.

ANGLESEA, Ancient.



A term which may be considered as a compound of Angle and Saxon, the names of the two principal Teutonic tribes which took possession of Britain and formed the English nation by their ultimate union. As thus regarded and used to designate the race, the language and the institutions which resulted from that union, it is only objectionable, perhaps, as being superfluous, because English is the accepted name of the people of England and all pertaining to them. But the term Anglo-Saxon has also been more particularly employed to designate the Early English people and their language, before the Norman Conquest, as though they were Anglo-Saxon at that period and became English afterwards. Modern historians are protesting strongly against this use of the term. Mr. Freeman (Norman Conquest, volume 1, note A), says: "The name by which our forefathers really knew themselves and by which they were known to other nations was English and no other. 'Angli,' 'Engle,' 'Angel-cyn,' 'Englisc,' are the true names by which the Teutons of Britain knew themselves and their language. … As a chronological term, Anglo-Saxon is equally objectionable with Saxon. The 'Anglo-Saxon period,' as far as there ever was one, is going on still. I speak therefore of our forefathers, not as 'Saxons,' or even as 'Anglo-Saxons,' but as they spoke of themselves, as Englishmen—'Angli,' 'Engle,'-'Angel-cyn.'"


ANGLON, Battle of.

   Fought in Armenia. A. D. 543, between the Romans and the
   Persians, with disaster to the former.

G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 20.

ANGORA, Battle of (1402).

See TIMOUR also, TURKS: A. D. 1389-1403.


See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.


The Angrivarii were one of the tribes of ancient Germany. Their settlements "were to the west of the Weser (Visurgis) in the neighbourhood of Minden and Herford, and thus coincide to some extent with Westphalia. Their territory was the scene of Varus' defeat. It has been thought that the name of this tribe is preserved in that of the town Engern."

A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb, Tacitus's Germany, notes.

See, also, BRUCTERI.

   Storming of the Turks (1064).

See TURKS: A. D. 1063-1073.


See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

   Creation of the County.
   Origin of the Plantagenets.

"It was the policy of this unfairly depreciated sovereign [Charles the Bald, grandson of Charlemagne, who received in the dismemberment of the Carlovingian Empire the Neustrian part, out of which was developed the modern kingdom of France, and who reigned from 840 to 877], to recruit the failing ranks of the false and degenerate Frankish aristocracy, by calling up to his peerage the wise, the able, the honest and the bold of ignoble birth. … He sought to surround himself with new men, the men without ancestry; and the earliest historian of the House of Anjou both describes this system and affords the most splendid example of the theory adopted by the king. Pre-eminent amongst these parvenus was Torquatus or Tortulfus, an Armorican peasant, a very rustic, a backwoodsman, who lived by hunting and such like occupations, almost in solitude, cultivating his 'quillets,' his 'cueillettes,' of land, and driving his own oxen, harnessed to his plough. Torquatus entered or was invited into the service of Charles-le-Chauve, and rose high in his sovereign's confidence: a prudent, a bold, and a good man. Charles appointed him Forester of the forest called 'the Blackbird's Nest,' the 'nid du merle,' a pleasant name, not the less pleasant for its familiarity. This happened during the conflicts with the Northmen. Torquatus served Charles strenuously in the wars, and obtained great authority. Tertullus, son of Torquatus, inherited his father's energies, quick and acute, patient of fatigue, ambitious and aspiring; he became the liegeman of Charles; and his marriage with Petronilla the King's cousin, Count Hugh the Abbot's daughter, introduced him into the very circle of the royal family. Chateau Landon and other benefices in the Gastinois were acquired by him, possibly as the lady's dowry. Seneschal also was Tertullus of the same ample Gastinois territory. Ingelger, son of Tertullus and Petronilla, appears as the first hereditary Count of Anjou Outre-Maine,—Marquis, Consul or Count of Anjou,—for all these titles are assigned to him. Yet the ploughman Torquatus must be reckoned as the primary Plantagenet: the rustic Torquatus founded that brilliant family."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, chapter 3.

ALSO IN K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, volume 1, chapter 2.


ANJOU: A. D. 987-1129.
   The greatest of the old Counts.

"Fulc Nerra, Fulc the Black [A. D. 987-1040] is the greatest of the Angevins, the first in whom we can trace that marked type of character which their house was to preserve with a fatal constancy through two hundred years. He was without natural affection. In his youth he burned a wife at the stake, and legend told how he led her to her doom decked out in his gayest attire. In his old age he waged his bitterest war against his son, and exacted from him when vanquished a humiliation which men reserved for the deadliest of their foes. 'You are conquered, you are conquered!' shouted the old man in fierce exultation, as Geoffry, bridled and saddled like a beast of burden, crawled for pardon to his father's feet. … But neither the wrath of Heaven nor the curses of men broke with a single mishap the fifty years of his success. At his accession Anjou was the least important of the greater provinces of France. At his death it stood, if not in extent, at least in real power, first among them all. … His overthrow of Brittany on the field of Conquereux was followed by the gradual absorption of Southern Touraine. … His great victory at Pontlevoi crushed the rival house of Blois; the seizure of Saumur completed his conquests in the South, while Northern Touraine was won bit by bit till only Tours resisted the Angevin. The treacherous seizure of its Count, Herbert Wake-dog, left Maine at his mercy ere the old man bequeathed his unfinished work to his son. As a warrior, Geoffry Martel was hardly inferior to his father. A decisive overthrow wrested Tours from the Count of Blois; a second left Poitou at his mercy; and the seizure of Le Mans brought him to the Norman border. Here … his advance was checked by the genius of William the Conqueror, and with his death the greatness of Anjou seemed for the time to have come to an end. Stripped of Maine by the Normans, and weakened by internal dissensions, the weak and profligate administration of Fulc Rechin left Anjou powerless against its rivals along the Seine. It woke to fresh energy with the accession of his son, Fulc of Jerusalem. … Fulc was the one enemy whom Henry the First really feared. It was to disarm his restless hostility that the King yielded to his son, Geoffry the Handsome, the hand of his daughter Matilda."

J. R. Green, A Short History of the English People, chapter 2, section 7.

ALSO IN K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, volume 1, chapters 2-4.

ANJOU: A. D. 1154.
   The Counts become Kings of England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189.

ANJOU: A. D. 1204.
   Wrested from the English King John.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224.

ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.
   English attempts to recover the county.
   The Third and Fourth Houses of Anjou.
   Creation of the Dukedom.

King John, of England, did not voluntarily submit to the sentence of the peers of France which pronounced his forfeiture of the fiefs of Anjou and Maine, "since he invaded and had possession of Angers again in 1206, when, Goth-like, he demolished its ancient walls. He lost it in the following year, and … made no further attempt upon it until 1213. In that year, having collected a powerful army, he landed at Rochelle, and actually occupied Angers, without striking a blow. But … the year 1214 beheld him once more in retreat from Anjou, never to reappear there, since he died on the 19th of October, 1216. In the person of King John ended what is called the 'Second House of Anjou.' In 1204, after the confiscations of John's French possessions, Philip Augustus established hereditary seneschals in that part of France, the first of whom was the tutor of the unfortunate Young Arthur [of Brittany], named William des Roches, who was in fact Count in all except the name, over Anjou, Maine, and Tourraine, owing allegiance only to the crown of France. The Seneschal, William des Roches, died in 1222. His son-in-law, Amaury de Craon, succeeded him," but was soon afterwards taken prisoner during a war in Brittany and incarcerated. Henry III. of England still claimed the title of Count of Anjou, and in 1230 he "disembarked a considerable army at St. Malo, in the view of re-conquering Anjou, and the other forfeited possessions of his crown. Louis IX., then only fifteen years old … advanced to the attack of the allies; but in the following year a peace was concluded, the province of Guienne having been ceded to the English crown. In 1241, Louis gave the counties of Poitou and Auvergne to his brother Alphonso; and, in the year 1246, he invested his brother Charles, Count of Provence, with the counties of Anjou and Maine, thereby annulling the rank and title of Seneschal, and instituting the Third House of Anjou. Charles I., the founder of the proud fortunes of this Third House, was ambitious in character, and events long favoured his ambition. Count of Provence, through the inheritance of his consort, had not long been invested with Anjou and Maine, ere he was invited to the conquest of Sicily [see ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268]." The Third House of Anjou ended in the person of John, who became King of France in 1350. In 1356 he invested his son Louis with Anjou and Maine, and in 1360 the latter was created the first Duke of Anjou. The Fourth House of Anjou, which began with this first Duke, came to an end two generations later with René, or Regnier,—the "good King René" of history and story, whose kingdom was for the most part a name, and who is best known to English readers, perhaps, as the father of Margaret of Anjou, the stout-hearted queen of Henry VI. On the death of his father, Louis, the second duke, René became by his father's will Count of Guise, his elder brother, Louis, inheriting the dukedom. In 1434 the brother died without issue and René succeeded him in Anjou, Maine and Provence. He had already become Duke of Bar, as the adopted heir of his great-uncle, the cardinal-duke, and Duke of Lorraine (1430), by designation of the late Duke, whose daughter he had married. In 1435 he received from Queen Joanna of Naples the doubtful legacy of that distracted kingdom, which she had previously bequeathed first, to Alphonso of Aragon, and afterwards-revoking that testament—to René's brother, Louis of Anjou. King René enjoyed the title during his life-time, and the actual kingdom for a brief period; but in 1442 he was expelled from Naples by his competitor Alphonso (see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447).

M. A. Hookham, Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou, introduction and chapters 1-2.

—————ANJOU: End—————


ANJOU, The English House of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1155-1189.

ANJOU, The Neapolitan House of: A. D. 1266.
   Conquest of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.

See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1268.

ANJOU: A. D. 1282.
   Loss of Sicily.
   Retention of Naples.

See ITALY: A. D. 1282-1300.

ANJOU: A. D. 1310-1382.
   Possession of the Hungarian throne.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

ANJOU: A. D. 1370-1384.
   Acquisition and loss of the crown of Poland.

See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

ANJOU: A. D. 1381-1384.
   Claims of Louis of Anjou.
   His expedition to Italy and his death.

See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.

ANJOU: A. D. 1386-1399.-
   Renewed contest for Naples.
   Defeat of Louis II. by Ladislas.

See ITALY: A. D. 1386-1414.

ANJOU: A. D. 1423-1442.
   Renewed contest for the crown of Naples.
   Defeat by Alfonso of Aragon and Sicily.

See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

—————ANJOU, The Neapolitan House of: End—————

ANKENDORFF, Battle of.




ANNA, Czarina of Russia, A. D. 1730-1740.



ANNAM: A. D. 1882-1885.
   War with France.
   French protectorate accepted.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

   Change of name from Port Royal (1710).

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.


"A practice had existed for some hundreds of years, in all the churches of Europe, that bishops and archbishops, on presentation to their sees, should transmit to the pope, on receiving their bulls of investment, one year's income from their new preferments. It was called the payment of Annates, or first-fruits, and had originated in the time of the crusades, as a means of providing a fund for the holy wars. Once established it had settled into custom, and was one of the chief resources of the papal revenue."

J. A. Froude, History of England, chapter 4.

"The claim [by the pope] to the first-fruits of bishoprics and other promotions was apparently first made in England by Alexander IV. in 1256, for five years; it was renewed by Clement V. in 1306, to last for two years; and it was in a measure successful. By John XXII. it was claimed throughout Christendom for three years, and met with universal resistance. … Stoutly contested as it was in the Council of Constance, and frequently made the subject of debate in parliament and council the demand must have been regularly complied with."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 19, section 718.


ANNE, Queen of England, A. D. 1702-1714.

ANNE OF AUSTRIA, Queen-regent of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643, to 1651-1653.

ANNE BOLEYN, Marriage, trial and execution of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534, and 1536-1543.





ANSPACH, Creation of the Margravate.


Separation from the Electorate of Brandenburg.

See BRANDENBUHG: A. D. 1417-1640.

ANTALCIDAS, Peace of (B. C. 387).

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.




"In each cohort [of the Roman legion, in Cæsar's time] a certain number of the best men, probably about one-fourth of the whole detachment, was assigned as a guard to the standard, from whence they derived their name of Antesignani."

C. Menvale, History of the Romans, chapter 15.

ANTHEMIUS, Roman Emperor:(Western), A. D. 467-472.




See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839, and 1845-1846.




See NEW YORK: A. D. 1826-1832.


See MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.








See MANTINEA: B. C. 222.


See GREECE: B. C. 307-197.

ANTIGONUS, and the wars of the Diadochi.

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


See MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.


"Familiar as is the name of the Antilles, few are aware of the antiquity of the word; while its precise significance sets etymology at defiance. Common consent identified the Antilia of legend with the Isle of the Seven Cities. In the year 734, says the story, the Arabs having conquered most of the Spanish peninsula, a number of Christian emigrants, under the direction of seven holy bishops, among them the archbishop of Oporto, sailed westward with all that they had, and reached an island where they founded seven towns. Arab geographers speak of an Atlantic island called in Arabic El-tennyn, or Al-tin (Isle of Serpents), a name which may possibly have become by corruption Antilia. … The seven bishops were believed in the 16th century to be still represented by their successors, and to preside over a numerous and wealthy people. Most geographers of the 15th century believed in the existence of Antilia. It was represented as lying west of the Azores. … As soon as it became known in Europe that Columbus had discovered a large island, Española was at once identified with Antilia, … and the name … has ever since been applied generally to the West Indian islands."

E. J. Payne, History of the New World called America, volume 1, page 98.

See, also, WEST INDIES.



See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638.

   Founding of the City.

See SELEUCIDÆ; and MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 310-301.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 36-400.
   The Christian Church.


ANTIOCH: A. D. 115.
   Great Earthquake.

"Early in the year 115, according to the most exact chronology, … the splendid capital of Syria was visited by an earthquake, one of the most disastrous apparently of all the similar inflictions from which that luckless city has periodically suffered. … The calamity was enhanced by the presence of unusual crowds from all the cities of the east, assembled to pay homage to the Emperor [Trajan], or to take part in his expedition [of conquest in the east]. Among the victims were many Romans of distinction. … Trajan, himself, only escaped by creeping through a window."

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

ANTIOCH: A. D. 260.
   Surprise, massacre and pillage by Sapor, King of Persia.

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 526.
   Destruction by Earthquake.

During the reign of Justinian (A. D. 518-565) the cities of the Roman Empire "were overwhelmed by earthquakes more frequent than at any other period of history. Antioch, the metropolis of Asia, was entirely destroyed, on the 20th of May, 526, at the very time when the inhabitants of the adjacent country were assembled to celebrate the festival of the Ascension; and it is affirmed that 250,000 persons were crushed by the fall of its sumptuous edifices."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 10.

ALSO IN: E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 43.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 540.
   Stormed, pillaged and burned by Chosroes, the Persian King.

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 638.
   Surrender to the Arabs.


ANTIOCH: A. D. 969.
   Recapture by the Byzantines.

   After having remained 328 years in the possession of the
   Saracens, Antioch was retaken in the winter of A. D. 969 by
   the Byzantine Emperor, Nicephorus Phokas, and became again a
   Christian city. Three years later the Moslems made a great
   effort to recover the city, but were defeated. The Byzantine
   arms were at this time highly successful in the never ending
   Saracen war, and John Zimiskes, successor of Nicephorus
   Phokas, marched triumphantly to the Tigris and threatened even
   Bagdad. But most of the conquests thus made in Syria and
   Mesopotamia were not lasting.

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire, A. D. 716-1007,
      book 2, chapter 2.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE, A. D. 963-1025.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 1097-1098.
   Siege and capture by the Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 1099-1144.

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 1268.
   Extinction of the Latin Principality.
   Total destruction of the city.

Antioch fell, before the arms of Bibars, the Sultan of Egypt and Syria, and the Latin principality was bloodily extinguished, in 1268. "The first seat of the Christian name was dispeopled by the slaughter of seventeen, and the captivity of one hundred, thousand of her inhabitants." This fate befell Antioch only twenty-three years before the last vestige of the conquests of the crusaders was obliterated at Acre.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 59.

"The sultan halted for several weeks in the plain, and permitted his soldiers to hold a large market, or fair, for the sale of their booty. This market was attended by Jews and pedlars from all parts of the East. … 'It was,' says the Cadi Mohieddin, 'a fearful and heart-rending sight. Even the hard stones were softened with grief.' He tells us that the captives were so numerous that a fine hearty boy might be purchased for twelve pieces of silver, and a little girl for five. When the work of pillage had been completed, when all the ornaments and decorations had been carried away from the churches, and the lead torn from the roofs, Antioch was fired in different places, amid the loud thrilling shouts of 'Allah Acbar,' 'God is Victorious.' The great churches of St. Paul and St. Peter burnt with terrific fury for many days, and the vast and venerable city was left without a habitation and without an inhabitant."

C. G. Addison, The Knights Templars, chapter 6.

—————ANTIOCH: End—————


See SELEUCIDÆ, THE: B. C. 281-224, and 224-187.

ANTIPATER, and the wars of the Diadochi.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.


"Antium, once a flourishing city of the Volsci, and afterwards of the Romans, their conquerors, is at present reduced to a small number of inhabitants. Originally it was without a port; the harbour of the Antiates having been the neighbouring indentation in the coast of Ceno, now Nettuno, distant more than a mile to the eastward. … The piracies of the ancient Antiates all proceeded from Ceno, or Cerio, where they had 22 long ships. These Numicius took; … some were taken to Rome and their rostra suspended in triumph in the Forum. … It [Antium] was reckoned 260 stadia, or about 32 miles, from Ostia."

Sir W. Gell, Topography of Rome, volume 1.

ANTIUM, Naval Battle of (1378).

See VENICE: A. D. 1378-1379.



ANTOINE DE BOURBON, King of Navarre, A. D. 1555-1557.


See ROME: A. D. 138-180.

ANTONINUS, Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor, A. D. 161-180.

ANTONINUS PIUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 138-161.

ANTONY, Mark, and the Second Triumvirate.

See ROME: B. C. 44 to 31.


   In the Salic law, of the Franks, there is no trace of any
   recognized order of nobility. "We meet, however, with
   several titles denoting temporary rank, derived from offices
   political and judicial, or from a position about the person of
   the king. Among these the Antrustiones, who were in constant
   attendance upon the king, played a conspicuous part. …
   Antrustiones and Convivæ Regis [Romans who held the same
   position] are the predecessors of the Vassi Dominici of later
   times, and like these were bound to the king by an especial
   oath of personal and perpetual service. They formed part, as
   it were, of the king's family, and were expected to reside in
   the palace, where they superintended the various departments
   of the royal household."

      W. C. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapter 10.

   The name of the City.

Its commercial greatness in the 16th century.—"The city was so ancient that its genealogists, with ridiculous gravity, ascended to a period two centuries before the Trojan war, and discovered a giant, rejoicing in the classic name of Antigonus, established on the Scheld. This patriarch exacted one half the merchandise of all navigators who passed his castle, and was accustomed to amputate and cast into the river the right hands of those who infringed this simple tariff. Thus 'Hand-werpen,' hand-throwing, became Antwerp, and hence, two hands, in the escutcheon of the city, were ever held 'up in heraldic attestation of the truth. The giant was, in his turn, thrown into the Scheld by a hero, named Brabo, from whose exploits Brabant derived its name. … But for these antiquarian researches, a simpler derivation of the name would seem 'an t' werf,' 'on the wharf.' It had now [in the first half of the 16th century] become the principal entrepôt and exchange of Europe. … the commercial capital of the world. … Venice, Nuremburg, Augsburg, Bruges, were sinking, but Antwerp, with its deep and convenient river, stretched its arm to the ocean and caught the golden prize, as it fell from its sister cities' grasp. … No city, except Paris, surpassed it in population, none approached it in commercial splendor."

J. L. Motley, The Rise of the Dutch Republic, Hist. Introduction, section 13.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1313.
   Made the Staple for English trade.


ANTWERP: A. D. 1566.
   Riot of the Image-breakers in the Churches.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1576.
   The Spanish Fury.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1577.
   Deliverance of the city from its Spanish garrison.
   Demolition of the Citadel.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1583.
   Treacherous attempt of the Duke of Anjou.
   The French Fury.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1584-1585.
   Siege and reduction by Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma.
   The downfall of prosperity.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1648.
   Sacrificed to Amsterdam in the Treaty of Münster.
   Closing of the Scheldt.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1646-1648.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1706.
   Surrendered to Marlborough and the Allies.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1746-1748.
   Taken by the French and restored to Austria.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747;

ANTWERP: A. D. 1832.
   Siege of the Citadel by the French.
   Expulsion of the Dutch garrison.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.

—————ANTWERP: End—————






Apamea, a city founded by Seleucus Nicator on the Euphrates, the site of which is occupied by the modern town of Bir, had become, in Strabo's time (near the beginning of the Christian Era) one of the principal centers of Asiatic trade, second only to Ephesus. Thapsacus, the former customary crossing-place of the Euphrates, had ceased to be so, and the passage was made at Apamea. A place on the opposite bank of the river was called Zeugma, or "the bridge." Bir "is still the usual place at which travellers proceeding from Antioch or Aleppo towards Bagdad cross the Euphrates."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 22, section 1 (volume 2, pages 298 and 317).




An annual family festival of the Athenians, celebrated for three days in the early part of the month of October (Pyanepsion). "This was the characteristic festival of the Ionic race; handed down from a period anterior to the constitution of Kleisthenes, and to the ten new tribes each containing so many demes, and bringing together the citizens in their primitive unions of family, gens, phratry, etc., the aggregate of which had originally constituted the four Ionic tribes, now superannuated. At the Apaturia, the family ceremonies were gone through; marriages were enrolled, acts of adoption were promulgated and certified, the names of youthful citizens first entered on the gentile and phratric roll; sacrifices were jointly celebrated by these family assemblages to Zeus Phratrius, Athênê, and other deities, accompanied with much festivity and enjoyment."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 64 (volume 7).





APHEK, Battle of.

A great victory won by Ahab, king of Israel over Benhadad, king of Damascus.

H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 4, section 1.


"When Aristotle speaks of the officers of government to whom the public revenues were delivered, who kept them and distributed them to the several administrative departments, these are called, he adds, apodectæ and treasurers. In Athens the apodectæ were ten in number, in accordance with the number of the tribes. They were appointed by lot. … They had in their possession the lists of the debtors of the state, received the money which was paid in, registered an account of it and noted the amount in arrear, and in the council house in the presence of the council, erased the names of the debtors who had paid the demands against them from the list, and deposited this again in the archives. Finally, they, together with the council, apportioned the sums received."

A. Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens (translated by Lamb), book 2, chapter 4.






APOSTOLIC MAJESTY: Origin of the Title.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.


"The term appanage denotes the provision made for the younger children of a king of France. This always consisted of lands and feudal superiorities held of the crown by the tenure of peerage. It is evident that this usage, as it produced a new class of powerful feudataries, was hostile to the interests and policy of the sovereign, and retarded the subjugation of the ancient aristocracy. But an usage coeval with the monarchy was not to be abrogated, and the scarcity of money rendered it impossible to provide for the younger branches of the royal family by any other means. It was restrained however as far as circumstances would permit."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 1, part 2.

"From the words 'ad' and 'panis,' meaning that it was to provide bread for the person who held it. A portion of appanage was now given to each of the king's younger sons, which descended to his direct heirs, but in default of them reverted to the crown."

T. Wright, History of France, volume 1, page 308, note.


Appius Claudius, called the Blind, who was censor at Rome from 312 to 308 B. C. [see ROME: B. C. 312], constructed during that time "the Appian road, the queen of roads, because the Latin road, passing by Tusculum, and through the country of the Hernicans, was so much endangered, and had not yet been quite recovered by the Romans: the Appian road, passing by Terracina, Fundi and Mola, to Capua, was intended to be a shorter and safer one. … The Appian road, even if Appius did carry it as far as Capua, was not executed by him with that splendour for which we still admire it in those parts which have not been destroyed intentionally: the closely joined polygons of basalt, which thousands of years have not been able to displace, are of a somewhat later origin. Appius commenced the road because there was actual need for it; in the year A. U. 457 [B. C. 297] peperino, and some years later basalt (silex) was first used for paving roads, and, at the beginning, only on the small distance from the Porta Capena to the temple of Mars, as we are distinctly told by Livy. Roads constructed according to artistic principles had previously existed."

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on the History of Rome, lecture 45.

ALSO IN: Sir W. Gell, Topography of Rome, volume 1.

H. G. Liddell, History of ROME, volume 1, page 251.





APULIA: A. D. 1042-1127.
   Norman conquest and Dukedom.
   Union with Sicily.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090, and 1081-1194.





AQUÆ SEXTIÆ, Battle of.



The Roman name of the long famous watering-place known in modern England as the city of Bath. It was splendidly adorned in Roman times with temples and other edifices.

      T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5.

   The native name of Rhode Island.

See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

AQUILA, Battle of (1424).

See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.


Aquileia, at the time of the destruction of that city by the Huns, A. D. 452, was, "both as a fortress and a commercial emporium, second to none in Northern Italy. It was situated at the northernmost point of the gulf of Hadria, about twenty miles northwest of Trieste, and the place where it once stood is now in the Austrian dominions, just over the border which separates them from the kingdom of Italy. In the year 181 B. C. a Roman colony had been sent to this far corner of Italy to serve as an outpost against some intrusive tribes, called by the vague name of Gauls. … Possessing a good harbour, with which it was connected by a navigable river, Aquileia gradually became the chief entrepôt for the commerce between Italy and what are now the Illyrian provinces of Austria."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 2, chapter 4.

AQUILEIA: A. D. 238.
   Siege by Maximin.

See ROME: A. D. 238.

AQUILEIA: A. D. 388.
   Overthrow of Maximus by Theodosius.

See ROME: A. D. 379-395.

AQUILEIA: A. D. 452.
   Destruction by the Huns.

      See HUNS: A. D. 452;
      also, VENICE: A. D. 452.

—————AQUILEIA: End—————

   The ancient tribes.

The Roman conquest of Aquitania was achieved, B. C. 56, by one of Cæsar's lieutenants, the Younger Crassus, who first brought the people called the Sotiates to submission and then defeated their combined neighbors in a murderous battle, where three-fourths of them are said to have been slain. The tribes which then submitted "were the Tarbelli, Bigerriones, Preciani, Vocates, Tarusates, Elusates, Garites, Ausci, Garumni, Sibuzates and Cocosates. The Tarbelli were in the lower basin of the Adour. Their chief place was on the site of the hot springs of Dax. The Bigerriones appear in the name Bigorre. The chief place of the Elusates was Elusa, Eause; and the town of Auch on the river Gers preserves the name of the Ausci. The names Garites, if the name is genuine, and Garumni contain the same element, Gar, as the river Garumna [Garonne] and the Gers. It is stated by Walckenaer that the inhabitants of the southern part of Les Landes are still called Cousiots. Cocosa, Caussèque, is twenty-four miles from Dax on the road from Dax to Bordeaux."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 6.

"Before the arrival of the brachycephalic Ligurian race, the Iberians ranged over the greater part of France. … If, as seems probable, we may identify them with the Aquitani, one of the three races which occupied Gaul in the time of Cæsar, they must have retreated to the neighbourhood of the Pyrenees before the beginning of the historic period."

I. Taylor, Origin of the Aryans, chapter 2, section 5.

AQUITAINE: In Cæsar's time.


AQUITAINE: Settlement of the Visigoths.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419.

   Divided between the Merovingian Kings.

See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.


AQUITAINE: A. D. 681-768.
   The independent Dukes and their subjugation.

"The old Roman Aquitania, in the first division of the spoils of the Empire, had fallen to the Visigoths, who conquered it without much trouble. In the struggle between them and the Merovingians, it of course passed to the victorious party. But the quarrels, so fiercely contested between the different members of the Frank monarchy, prevented them from retaining a distant possession within their grasp; and at this period [681-718, when the Mayors of the Palace, Pepin and Carl, were gathering the reins of government over the three kingdoms—Austrasia, Neustria and Burgundy—into their hands]. Eudo, the duke of Aquitaine, was really an independent prince. The population had never lost its Roman character; it was, in fact, by far the most Romanized in the whole of Gaul. But it had also received a new element in the Vascones or Gascons [see BASQUES], a tribe of Pyrenean mountaineers, who descending from their mountains, advanced towards the north until their progress was checked by the broad waters of the Garonne. At this time, however, they obeyed Eudo. "This duke of Aquitaine, Eudo, allied himself with the Neustrians against the ambitious Austrasian Mayor, Carl Martel, and shared with them the crushing defeat at Soissons, A. D. 718, which established the Hammerer's power. Eudo acknowledged allegiance and was allowed to retain his dukedom. But, half-a-century afterwards, Carl's son, Pepin, who had pushed the 'fainéant' Merovingians from the Frank throne and seated himself upon it, fought a nine years' war with the then duke of Aquitaine, to establish his sovereignty. "The war, which lasted nine years [760-768], was signalized by frightful ravages and destruction of life upon both sides, until, at last, the Franks became masters of Berri, Auvergne, and the Limousin, with their principal cities. The able and gallant Guaifer [or Waifer] was assassinated by his own subjects, and Pepin had the satisfaction of finally uniting the grand-duchy of Aquitaine to the monarchy of the Franks."

J. G. Sheppard, Fall of Rome, lecture 8.

ALSO IN: P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul, chapters 14-15.

W. H. Perry, The Franks, chapter 5-6.

   Ravaged by the Moslems.


   Erected into a separate kingdom by Charlemagne.

In the year 781 Charlemagne erected Italy and Aquitaine into separate kingdoms, placing his two infant sons, Pepin and Ludwig or Louis on their respective thrones. "The kingdom of Aquitaine embraced Vasconia [Gascony], Septimania, Aquitaine proper (that is, the country between the Garonne and the Loire) and the county, subsequently the duchy, of Toulouse. Nominally a kingdom, Aquitaine was in reality a province, entirely dependent on the central or personal government of Charles. … The nominal designations of king and kingdom might gratify the feelings of the Aquitanians, but it was a scheme contrived for holding them in a state of absolute dependence and subordination."

J. I. Mombert, History of Charles the Great, book 2, chapter 11.

   In the division of Charlemagne's Empire.

See FRANCE: A. D.843.

AQUITAINE: A. D. 884-1151.
   The end of the nominal kingdom.
   The disputed Ducal Title.

"Carloman [who died 884], son of Louis the Stammerer, was the last of the Carlovingians who bore the title of king of Aquitaine. This vast state ceased from this time to constitute a kingdom. It had for a lengthened period been divided between powerful families, the most illustrious of which are those of the Counts of Toulouse, founded in the ninth century by Fredelon, the Counts of Poitiers, the Counts of Auvergne, the Marquises of Septimania or Gothia, and the Dukes of Gascony. King Eudes had given William the Pius, Count of Auvergne, the Investiture of the duchy of Aquitaine. On the extinction of that family in 928, the Counts of Toulouse and those of Poitou disputed the prerogatives and their quarrel stained the south with blood for a long time. At length the Counts of Poitou acquired the title of Dukes of Aquitaine or Guyenne [or Guienne,—supposed to be a corruption of the name of Aquitaine, which came into use during the Middle Ages], which remained in their house up to the marriage of Eleanor of Aquitaine with Henry Plantagenet I. [Henry II.], King of England (1151)."

E. De Bonnechose, History of France, book 2, chapter 3, foot-note.

"The duchy Aquitaine, or Guyenne, as held by Eleanor's predecessors, consisted, roughly speaking, of the territory between the Loire and the Garonne. More exactly, it was bounded on the north by Anjou and Touraine, on the east by Berry and Auvergne, on the south-east by the Quercy or County of Cahors, and on the south-west by Gascony, which had been united with it for the last hundred years. The old Karolingian kingdom of Aquitania had been of far greater extent; it had, in fact, included the whole country between the Loire, the Pyrenees, the Rhone and the ocean. Over all this vast territory the Counts of Poitou asserted a theoretical claim of overlordship by virtue of their ducal title; they had, however, a formidable rival in the house of the Counts of Toulouse."

K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, volume 1, chapter 10.


AQUITAINE: A. D. 1137-1152. Transferred by marriage from the crown of France to the crown of England.

In 1137, "the last of the old line of the dukes of Aquitaine—William IX., son of the gay crusader and troubadour whom the Red King had hoped to succeed—died on a pilgrimage at Compostella. His only son was already dead, and before setting out for his pilgrimage he did what a greater personage had done ten years before: with the consent of his barons, he left the whole of his dominions to his daughter. Moreover, he bequeathed the girl herself as wife to the young king Louis [VII.] of France. This marriage more than doubled the strength of the French crown. It gave to Louis absolute possession of all western Aquitaine, or Guyenne as it was now beginning to be called; that is the counties of Poitou and Gascony, with the immediate overlordship of the whole district lying between the Loire and the Pyrenees, the Rhone and the ocean:—a territory five or six times as large as his own royal domain and over which his predecessors had never been able to assert more than the merest shadow of a nominal superiority." In 1152 Louis obtained a divorce from Eleanor, surrendering all the great territory which she had added to his dominions, rather than maintain an unhappy union. The same year the gay duchess was wedded to Henry Plantagenet, then Duke of Normandy, afterwards Henry II. King of England. By this marriage Aquitaine became joined to the crown of England and remained so for three hundred years.

K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, volume 1, chapter 8.


AQUITAINE: 12th Century.
   The state of the southern parts.

See PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.

AQUITAINE: A. D. 1360-1453.
   Full sovereignty possessed by the English Kings.
   The final conquest and union with France.

"By the Peace of Bretigny [see FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360] Edward III. resigned his claims on the crown of France; but he was recognized in return as independent Prince of Aquitaine, without any homage or superiority being reserved to the French monarch. When Aquitaine therefore was conquered by France, partly in the 14th, fully in the 15th century [see FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453], it was not the 'reunion' of a forfeited fief, but the absorption of a distinct and sovereign state. The feelings of Aquitaine itself seem to have been divided. The nobles to a great extent, though far from universally, preferred the French connexion. It better fell in with their notions of chivalry, feudal dependency, and the like; the privileges too which French law conferred on noble birth would make their real interests lie that way. But the great cities and, we have reason to believe, the mass of the people, also, clave faithfully to their ancient Dukes; and they had good reason to do so. The English Kings, both by habit and by interest, naturally protected the municipal liberties of Bourdeaux and Bayonne, and exposed no part of their subjects to the horrors of French taxation and general oppression."

E. A. Freeman, The Franks and the Gauls (Historical Essays, 1st Series, No.7).

—————AQUITAINE: End—————



   The Name.

"There can be no doubt that the name of the Arabs was … given from their living at the westernmost part of Asia; and their own word 'Gharb,' the 'West,' is another form of the original Semitic name Arab."

G. Rawlinson, Notes to Herodotus, volume 2, page 71.

   The ancient succession and fusion of Races.

"The population of Arabia, after long centuries, more especially after the propagation and triumph of Islamism, became uniform throughout the peninsula. … But it was not always thus. It was very slowly and gradually that the inhabitants of the various parts of Arabia were fused into one race. … Several distinct races successively immigrated into the peninsula and remained separate for many ages. Their distinctive characteristics, their manners and their civilisation prove that these nations were not all of one blood. Up to the time of Mahomet, several different languages were spoken in Arabia, and it was the introduction of Islamism alone that gave predominence to that one amongst them now called Arabic. The few Arabian historians deserving of the name, who have used any discernment in collecting the traditions of their country, Ibn Khaldoun, for example, distinguish three successive populations in the peninsula. They divide these primitive, secondary, and tertiary Arabs into three divisions, called Ariba, Motareba, and Mostareba. … The Ariba were the first and most ancient inhabitants of Arabia. They consisted principally of two great nations, the Adites, sprung from Ham, and the Amalika of the race of Aram, descendants of Shem, mixed with nations of secondary importance, the Thamudites of the race of Ham, and the people of the Tasm, and Jadis, of the family of Aram. The Motareba were tribes sprung from Joktan, son of Eber, always in Arabian tradition called Kahtan. The Mostareba of more modern origin were Ismaelitish tribes. … The Cushites, the first inhabitants of Arabia, are known in the national traditions by the name of Adites, from their progenitor, who is called Ad, the grandson of Ham. All the accounts given of them by Arab historians are but fanciful legends. … In the midst of all the fabulous traits with which these legends abound, we may perceive the remembrance of a powerful empire founded by the Cushites in very early ages, apparently including the whole of Arabia Felix, and not only Yemen proper. We also find traces of a wealthy nation, constructors of great buildings, with an advanced civilisation analogous to that of Chaldæa, professing a religion similar to the Babylonian; a nation, in short, with whom material progress was allied to great moral depravity and obscene rites. … It was about eighteen centuries before our era that the Joktanites entered Southern Arabia. … According to all appearances, the invasion, like all events of a similar nature, was accomplished only by force. … After this invasion, the Cushite element of the population, being still the most numerous, and possessing great superiority in knowledge and civilisation over the Joktanites, who were still almost in the nomadic state, soon recovered the moral and material supremacy, and political dominion. A new empire was formed in which the power still belonged to the Sabæans of the race of Cush. … Little by little the new nation of Ad was formed. The centre of its power was the country of Sheba proper, where, according to the tenth chapter of Genesis, there was no primitive Joktanite tribe, although in all the neighbouring provinces they were already settled. … It was during the first centuries of the second Adite empire that Yemen was temporarily subjected by the Egyptians, who called it the land of Pun. … Conquered during the minority of Thothmes III., and the regency of the Princess Hatasu, Yemen appears to have been lost by the Egyptians in the troublous times at the close of the eighteenth dynasty. Ramses II. recovered it almost immediately after he ascended the throne, and it was not till the time of the effeminate kings of the twentieth dynasty, that this splendid ornament of Egyptian power was finally lost. … The conquest of the land of Pun under Hatasu is related in the elegant bas-reliefs of the temple of Deir-el-Bahari, at Thebes, published by M. Duemichen. … The bas-reliefs of the temple of Deir-el-Bahari afford undoubted proofs of the existence of commerce between India and Yemen at the time of the Egyptian expedition under Hatasu. It was this commerce, much more than the fertility of its own soil and its natural productions, that made Southern Arabia one of the richest countries in the world. … For a long time it was carried on by land only, by means of caravans crossing Arabia; for the navigation of the Red Sea, much more difficult and dangerous than that of the Indian Ocean, was not attempted till some centuries later. … {122} The caravans of myrrh, incense, and balm crossing Arabia towards the land of Canaan are mentioned in the Bible, in the history of Joseph, which belongs to a period very near to the first establishment of the Canaanites in Syria. As soon as commercial towns arose in Phœnicia, we find, as the prophet Ezekiel said, 'The merchants of Sheba and Raamah, they were thy merchants: they occupied in thy fairs with chief of all spices, and with all precious stones and gold.' … A great number of Phœnician merchants, attracted by this trade, established themselves in Yemen, Hadramaut, Oman, and Bahrein. Phœnician factories were also established at several places on the Persian Gulf, amongst others in the islands of Tylos and Arvad, formerly occupied by their ancestors. … This commerce, extremely flourishing during the nineteenth dynasty, seems, together with the Egyptian dominion in Yemen, to have ceased under the feeble and inactive successors of Ramses III. … Nearly two centuries passed away, when Hiram and Solomon despatched vesse