History for ready reference, Volume 1, A-Elba

by J. N. Larned

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).
See, also, above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tachies.
See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS AND THE NAME.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tacullies.
See below: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Taensas.
See NATCHESAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
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
River."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 121.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Talligewi.
See above: ALLEGHANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
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.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tappans.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Taranteens or Tarratines.
See above: ABNAKIS:
also, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tarascans.
"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.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tarumi.
See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tecuna.
See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tehuel Che.
See above: PATAGONIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Telmelches.
See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tequestas.
See below: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tetons.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Teutecas, or Tenez.
See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.
{106}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
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.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tinneh.
See above: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tivitivas.
See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tlascalans.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (JUNE-OCTOBER).
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
T'linkets.
See above: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tobacco Nation.
See above: HURONS;
and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR NAME.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tobas.
See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Toltecs.
See MEXICO, ANCIENT.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
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.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
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.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tontos.
See above: APACHE GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Toromonos.
See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Totonacos.
"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.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tukuarika.
See above: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tupi.--Guarani.--Tupuyas.
"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.
{107}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Turiero.
See above: CHIBCHAS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tuscaroras.
See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY,
and IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tuteloes.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Twightwees, or Miamis.
See above: ILLINOIS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Two Kettles.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Uaupe.
See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
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.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Uhilches.
See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Uirina.
See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Uncpapas.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Upsarokas, or Absarokas, or Crows.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Utahs.
See above: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wabenakies, or Abnakis.
See above: ABNAKIS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wacos, or Huecos.
See above: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wahpetons.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
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.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Waikas.
See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
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.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wampanoags, or Pokanokets.
See above: POKANOKETS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wapisianas.
See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wappingers.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Waraus.
See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Washakis.
See above: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES
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.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wichitas, or Pawnee Picts.
See above: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Winnebagoes.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
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.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Witumkas.
See above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Woccons.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wyandots.
See above: HURONS.
Yamasis and Yamacraws.
See above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yamco.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
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.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yanktons and Yanktonnais.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yncas, or Incas.
See PERU.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yuchi.
See above: UCHEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yuguarzongo.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
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.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yuman Family.
"The center of distribution of the tribes of this family is
generally considered to be the lower Colorado and Gila
Valleys."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 137.
See above: APACHE GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yuncas.
See PERU.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yuroks or Eurocs.
See above: MODOCS, &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Zaporo.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
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.
{108}
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.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Zoques.
See above: ZAPOTECS, ETC.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
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.
See, above, PUEBLOS;
also, AMERICA: PREHISTORIC.
----------AMERICAN ABORIGINES: End----------
AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER),
and after.
Statistics of. See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY).
AMERICAN KNIGHTS, Order of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).
AMERICAN PARTY, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.
AMERICAN SYSTEM, The.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824.
AMHERST, Lord, The Indian Administration of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
AMHERST'S CAMPAIGNS IN AMERICA.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1758 to 1760.
AMICITIÆ.
See GUILDS OF FLANDERS.
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, chapter 9, 19
and 24.
See, also, PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
AMIENS.--Origin of name.
See BELGÆ.
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.
See OXFORD, PROVISIONS 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. chapter 26 and 28.
AMIENS, Treaty of (1801).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
AMIN AL, Caliph, A. D. 809-813.
AMIR.
An Arabian title, signifying chief or ruler.
AMISIA, The.
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, chapter 1 and
2.
AMMANN.
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.
{109}
AMMONITES, The.
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.
See JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY;
also, MOABITES.
AMMONITI, OR AMMONIZIONI, The.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1358.
AMNESTY PROCLAMATION.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.D. 1863 (DECEMBER).
AMORIAN DYNASTY, The.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.
AMORIAN WAR, The.
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.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
AMORITES, The.
"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.
AMPHIKTYONIC COUNCIL.
"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.
{110}
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.
AMPHILOCHIANS, The.
See AKARNANIANS.
AMPHIPOLIS.
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.
AMPHITHEATRES, Roman.
"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.
AMPHORA.--MODIUS.
"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.
AMRITSAR.
See SIKHS.
AMSTERDAM:
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.
{111}
AMT.--AMTER.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874;
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.
AMYCLÆ,
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.
AMYTHAONIDÆ, The.
See ARGOS.--ARGOLIS.
AN, The City of.
See ON.
ANABAPTISTS OF MÜNSTER.
"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 the same,
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.
ANAHUAC.
"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.
ANAKIM, The.
See HORITES, and AMORITES.
ANAKTORIUM.
See KORKYRA.
ANAPA: A. D. 1828.
Siege and Capture.
Cession to Russia.
See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.
ANARCHISTS.
"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.
ANATOLIA.
See ASIA MINOR.
ANCALITES, The.
A tribe of ancient Britons whose home was near the Thames.
ANCASTER, Origin of.
See CAUSENNÆ.
{113}
ANCHORITES.--HERMITS.
"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.
ANCIENT REGIME.
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.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795(JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
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).
ANDALUSIA:
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.
ANDAMAN ISLANDERS, The.
See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
ANDASTÉS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SUSQUEHANNAS.
ANDECAVI.
The ancient name of the city of Angers, France, and of the
tribe which occupied that region.
See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.
ANDERIDA.--ANDERIDA SYLVA.--ANDREDSWALD.
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.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER); 1861
(MARCH-APRIL).
ANDERSONVILLE PRISON--PENS.
See PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS, CONFEDERATE.
ANDES, OR ANDI, OR ANDECAVI, The.
See VENETI of WESTERN GAUL.
ANDESIANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES; ANDESIANS.
ANDRE, Major John, The Capture and execution of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
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.
See
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.
ANGELIQUE, La Mère.
See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1602-1660.
ANGERS, Origin of.
See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.
ANGEVIN KINGS AND ANGEVIN EMPIRE.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189.
ANGHIARI, Battle of (1425).
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
ANGLES AND JUTES, The.
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.
{114}
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; Epilegomena, 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.
See MONA, MONAPIA, and NORMANS: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.
ANGLO-SAXON.
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.'"
See, also, SAXONS, and ANGLES AND JUTES.
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.
ANGOSTURA, OR BUENA VISTA, Battle of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.
ANGRIVARII, The.
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.
ANI.
Storming of the Turks (1064).
See TURKS: A. D. 1063-1073.
ANILLEROS, The.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
ANJOU:
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.
{115}
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, chapter
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 chapter 1-2.
----------ANJOU: End----------
{116}
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.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
ANKERS.
See ANCHORITES.
ANNA, Czarina of Russia, A. D. 1730-1740.
ANNALES MAXIMI, The.
See FASTI.
ANNAM: A. D. 1882-1885.
War with France.
French protectorate accepted.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.
ANNAPOLIS ROYAL, NOVA SCOTIA:
Change of name from Port Royal (1710).
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.
ANNATES, OR FIRST-FRUITS.
"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.
See, also, QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.
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.
ANSAR, The.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
ANSIBARII, The.
See FRANKS: ORIGIN, &c.
ANSPACH, Creation of the Margravate.
See GERMANY: 13TH CENTURY.
Separation from the Electorate of Brandenburg.
See BRANDENBUHG: A. D. 1417-1640.
ANTALCIDAS, Peace of (B. C. 387).
See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
ANTES, The.
See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.
ANTESIGNANI, The.
"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.
ANTHESTERIA, The.
See DIONYSIA AT ATHENS.
ANTI-CORN-LAW LEAGUE.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839, and
1845-1846.
ANTI-FEDERALISTS.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.
ANTI-MASONIC PARTY, American.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1826-1832.
ANTI-MASONIC PARTY, Mexican.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.
ANTI-RENTERS.--ANTI-RENT WAR.
See LIVINGSTON MANOR.
ANTI-SLAVERY MOVEMENTS.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO.
ANTIETAM, OR SHARPSBURG, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).
ANTIGONEA.
See MANTINEA: B. C. 222.
ANTIGONID KINGS, The.
See GREECE: B. C. 307-197.
ANTIGONUS, and the wars of the Diadochi.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316; 315-310; 310-301.
ANTIGONUS GONATUS, The wars of.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.
ANTILLES.--ANTILIA.
"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.
{117}
ANTINOMIAN CONTROVERSY IN PURITAN MASSACHUSETTS.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638.
ANTIOCH:
Founding of the City.
See SELEUCIDÆ; and MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 310-301.
ANTIOCH: A. D. 36-400.
The Christian Church.
See CHRISTIANITY, EARLY.
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.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
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.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.
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.
Principality.
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.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
"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----------
ANTIOCHUS SOTER, AND ANTIOCHUS THE GREAT.
See SELEUCIDÆ, THE: B. C. 281-224, and 224-187.
ANTIPATER, and the wars of the Diadochi.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.
ANTIUM.
"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.
ANTIVESTÆUM.
See BRITAIN, TRIBES OF CELTIC.
ANTOINE DE BOURBON, King of Navarre, A. D. 1555-1557.
ANTONINES, The.
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.
ANTRUSTIONES.
In the Salic law, of the Franks, there is no trace of any
recognized order of nobility. "We meet, however, with
{118}
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.
ANTWERP:
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.
See STAPLE.
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;
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.
ANTWERP: A. D. 1832.
Siege of the Citadel by the French.
Expulsion of the Dutch garrison.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.
----------ANTWERP: End----------
APACHES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP, and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
APALACHES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APALACHES.
APAMEA.
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).
APANAGE.
See APPANAGE.
APATURIA, The.
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).
APELLA, The.
See SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION. &c.
APELOUSAS, The.
See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL, INHABITANTS.
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.
APODECTÆ, The.
"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.
APOLLONIA IN ILLYRIA, The Founding of.
See KORKYRA.
{119}
APOSTASION.
See POLETÆ.
APOSTOLIC MAJESTY: Origin of the Title.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.
APPANAGE.
"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.
APPIAN WAY, The.
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.
APPOMATTOX COURT HOUSE, Lee's Surrender at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL, VIRGINIA).
APULEIAN LAW.
See MAJESTAS.
APULIA: A. D. 1042-1127.
Norman conquest and Dukedom.
Union with Sicily.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090, and 1081-1194.
APULIANS, The.
See SABINES; also, SAMNITES.
AQUÆ SEXTIÆ.
See SALYES.
AQUÆ SEXTIÆ, Battle of.
See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES: B. C. 113-102.
AQUÆ SOLIS.
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.
AQUIDAY, OR AQUETNET.
The native name of Rhode Island.
See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
AQUILA, Battle of (1424).
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
AQUILEIA.
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----------
AQUITAINE:
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.
See GAUL DESCRIBED BY CÆSAR.
AQUITAINE: Settlement of the Visigoths.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419.
AQUITAINE: A. D. 567.--Divided between the Merovingian Kings.
See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.
{120}
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,
chapter 14-15.
W. H. Perry, The Franks, chapter 5-6.
AQUITAINE: A. D. 732.
Ravaged by the Moslems.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.
AQUITAINE: A. D. 781.
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.
AQUITAINE: A. D. 843.
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.
See, also, TOULOUSE: 10TH AND 11TH CENTURIES.
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.
{121}
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----------
AQUITANI, The.
See IBERIANS, THE WESTERN.
ARABIA.--ARABS:
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.
ARABIA:
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 vessels down the Red Sea. ... The vessels of the
two monarchs were not content with doing merely what had once
before been done under the Egyptians of the nineteenth
dynasty, namely, fetching from the ports of Yemen the
merchandise collected there from India. They were much bolder,
and their enterprise was rewarded with success. Profiting by
the regularity of the monsoons, they fetched the products of
India at first hand, from the very place of their shipment in
the ports of the land of Ophir, or Abhira. These distant
voyages were repeated with success as long as Solomon reigned.
The vessels going to Ophir necessarily touched at the ports of
Yemen to take in provisions and await favourable winds. Thus
the renown of the two allied kings, particularly of the power
of Solomon, was spread in the land of the Adites. This was the
cause of the journey made by the queen of Sheba to Jerusalem
to see Solomon. ... The sea voyages to Ophir, and even to
Yemen, ceased at the death of Solomon. The separation of the
ten tribes, and the revolutions that simultaneously took place
at Tyre, rendered any such expeditions impracticable. ... The
empire of the second Adites lasted ten centuries, during which
the Joktanite tribes, multiplying in each generation, lived
amongst the Cushite Sabæans. ... The assimilation of the
Joktanites to the Cushites was so complete that the revolution
which gave political supremacy to the descendants of Joktan
over those of Cush produced no sensible change in the
civilisation of Yemen. But although using the same language,
the two elements of the population of Southern Arabia were
still quite distinct from each other, and antagonistic in
their interests. ... Both were called Sabæans, but the Bible
always carefully distinguishes them by a different
orthography. ... The majority of the Sabæan Cushites, however,
especially the superior castes, refused to submit to the
Joktanite yoke. A separation, therefore, took place, giving
rise to the Arab proverb, 'divided as the Sabæans,' and the
mass of the Adites emigrated to another country. According to
M. Caussin de Perceval, the passage of the Sabæans into
Abyssinia is to be attributed to the consequences of the
revolution that established Joktanite supremacy in Yemen. ...
The date of the passage of the Sabæans from Arabia into
Abyssinia is much more difficult to prove than the fact of
their having done so. ... Yarub, the conqueror of the Adites,
and founder of the new monarchy of Joktanite Arabs, was
succeeded on the throne by his son, Yashdjob, a weak and
feeble prince, of whom nothing is recorded, but that he
allowed the chiefs of the various provinces of his states to
make themselves independent. Abd Shems, surnamed Sheba, son of
Yashdjob, recovered the power his predecessors had lost. ...
Abd Shems had several children, the most celebrated being
Himyer and Kahlan, who left a numerous posterity. From these
two personages were descended the greater part of the Yemenite
tribes, who still existed at the time of the rise of Islamism.
The Himyarites seem to have settled in the towns, whilst the
Kahlanites inhabited the country and the deserts of Yemen. ...
This is the substance of all the information given by the Arab
historians."
F. Lenormant and E. Chevalier, Manual of Ancient History
of the East, book 7, chapter 1-2 (volume 2).
ARABIA:
Sabæans, The.
"For some time past it has been known that the Himyaritic
inscriptions fall into two groups, distinguished from one
another by phonological and grammatical differences. One of
the dialects is philologically older than the other,
containing fuller and more primitive grammatical forms. The
inscriptions in this dialect belong to a kingdom the capital
of which was at Ma'in, and which represents the country of the
Minæans of the ancients. The inscriptions in the other dialect
were engraved by the princes and people of Sabâ, the Sheba of
the Old Testament, the Sabæans of classical geography. The
Sabæan kingdom lasted to the time of Mohammed, when it was
destroyed by the advancing forces of Islam. Its rulers for
several generations had been converts to Judaism, and had been
engaged in almost constant warfare with the Ethiopic kingdom
of Axum, which was backed by the influence and subsidies of
Rome and Byzantium. Dr. Glaser seeks to show that the founders
of this Ethiopic kingdom were the Habâsa, or Abyssinians, who
migrated from Himyar to Africa in the second or first century
B. C.; when we first hear of them in the inscriptions they are
still the inhabitants of Northern Yemen and Mahrah. More than
once the Axumites made themselves masters of Southern Arabia.
About A. D. 300, they occupied its ports and islands, and from
350 to 378 even the Sabæan kingdom was tributary to them.
Their last successes were gained in 525, when, with Byzantine
help, they conquered the whole of Yemen. But the Sabæan
kingdom, in spite of its temporary subjection to Ethiopia, had
long been a formidable State. Jewish colonies settled in it,
and one of its princes became a convert to the Jewish faith.
His successors gradually extended their dominion as far as
Ormuz, and after the successful revolt from Axum in 378,
brought not only the whole of the southern coast under their
sway, but the western coast as well, as far north as Mekka.
Jewish influence made itself felt in the future birthplace of
Mohammed, and thus introduced those ideas and beliefs which
subsequently had so profound an effect upon the birth of
Islam. The Byzantines and Axumites endeavoured to counteract
the influence of Judaism by means of Christian colonies and
proselytism. The result was a conflict between Sabâ and its
assailants, which took the form of a conflict between the
members of the two religions.
{123}
A violent persecution was directed against the Christians of
Yemen, avenged by the Ethiopian conquest of the country and
the removal of its capital to San'a. The intervention of
Persia in the struggle was soon followed by the appearance of
Mohammedanism upon the scene, and Jew, Christian, and Parsi
were alike overwhelmed by the flowing tide of the new creed.
The epigraphic evidence makes it clear that the origin of the
kingdom of Sabâ went back to a distant date. Dr. Glaser traces
its history from the time when its princes were still but
Makârib, or 'Priests,' like Jethro, the Priest of Midian,
through the ages when they were 'kings of Sabâ,' and later
still 'kings of Sabâ and Raidân,' to the days when they
claimed imperial supremacy over all the principalities of
Southern Arabia. It was in this later period that they dated
their inscriptions by an era, which, as Halévy first
discovered, corresponds to 115 B. C. One of the kings of Sabâ
is mentioned in an inscription of the Assyrian king Sargon (B.
C. 715), and Dr. Glaser believes that he has found his name in
a 'Himyaritic' text. When the last priest, Samah'ali Darrahh,
became king of Sabâ, we do not yet know, but the age must be
sufficiently remote, if the kingdom of Sabâ already existed
when the Queen of Sheba came from Ophir to visit Solomon. The
visit need no longer cause astonishment, notwithstanding the
long journey by land which lay between Palestine and the south
of Arabia. ... As we have seen, the inscriptions of Ma'in set
before us a dialect of more primitive character than that of
Sabâ. Hitherto it had been supposed, however, that the two
dialects were spoken contemporaneously, and that the Minæan
and Sabæan kingdoms existed side by side. But geography
offered difficulties in the way of such a belief, since the
seats of Minæan power were embedded in the midst of the Sabæan
kingdom, much as the fragments of Cromarty are embedded in the
midst of other counties. Dr. Glaser has now made it clear that
the old supposition was incorrect, and that the Minæan kingdom
preceded the rise of Sabâ. We can now understand why it is
that neither in the Old Testament nor in the Assyrian
inscriptions do we hear of any princes of Ma'in, and that
though the classical writers are acquainted with the Minæan
people they know nothing of a Minæan kingdom. The Minæan
kingdom, in fact, with its culture and monuments, the relics
of which still survive, must have flourished in the grey dawn
of history, at an epoch at which, as we have hitherto
imagined, Arabia was the home only of nomad barbarism. And yet
in this remote age alphabetic writing was already known and
practised, the alphabet being a modification of the Phœnician
written vertically and not horizontally. To what an early date
are we referred for the origin of the Phœnician alphabet
itself! The Minæan Kingdom must have had a long existence. The
names of thirty-three of its kings are already known to us.
... A power which reached to the borders of Palestine must
necessarily have come into contact with the great monarchies
of the ancient world. The army of Ælius Gallus was doubtless
not the first which had sought to gain possession of the
cities and spice-gardens of the south. One such invasion is
alluded to in an inscription which was copied by M. Halévy.
... But the epigraphy of ancient Arabia is still in its
infancy. The inscriptions already known to us represent but a
small proportion of those that are yet to be discovered. ...
The dark past of the Arabian peninsula has been suddenly
lighted up, and we find that long before the days of Mohammed
it was a land of culture and literature, a seat of powerful
kingdoms and wealthy commerce, which cannot fail to have
exercised an influence upon the general history of the world."
A. H. Sayce, Ancient Arabia
(Contemporary Review., December, 1889).
ARABIA: 6th Century.
Partial conquest by the Abyssinians.
See ABYSSINIA: 6TH TO 16TH CENTURIES.
ARABIA: A. D. 609-632.
Mahomet's conquest.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
ARABIA: A. D. 1517.
Brought under the Turkish sovereignty.
See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.
----------ARABIA: End----------
ARABS, Conquests of the.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST.
ARACAN, English acquisition of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
ARACHOTI, The.
A people who dwelt anciently in the Valley of the Arghandab,
or Urgundab, in eastern Afghanistan. Herodotus gave them the
tribal name of "Pactyes," and the modern Afghans, who call
themselves "Pashtun" and "Pakhtun," signifying "mountaineers,"
are probably derived from them.
M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 7, chapter 1.
ARAGON: A. D. 1035-1258.
Rise of the kingdom.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.
ARAGON: A. D. 1133.
Beginning of popular representation in the Cortes.
The Monarchical constitution.
See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.
ARAGON: A. D. 1218-1238.
The first oath of allegiance to the king.
Conquest of Balearic Islands.
Subjugation of Valencia.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.
ARAGON: A. D. 1410-1475.
The Castilian dynasty.
Marriage of Ferdinand with Isabella of Castile.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.
ARAGON: A. D. 1516.
The crown united with that of Castile by Joanna,
mother of Charles V.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.
----------ARAGON: End----------
ARAICU, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
ARAM.--ARAM NAHARAIM.--ARAM--ZOBAH.--ARAMÆANS.
See SEMITES;
also, SEMITIC LANGUAGES.
ARAMBEC.
See NORUMBEGA.
ARAPAHOES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
ARAR, The.
The ancient name of the river Saone, in France.
ARARAT.--URARDA.
See ALARODIANS.
ARATOS, and the Achaian League.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
ARAUCANIANS, The.
See CHILE.
ARAUSIO.
A Roman colony was founded by Augustus at Arausio, which is
represented in name and site by the modern town of Orange, in
the department of Vaucluse, France, 18 miles north of Avignon.
P. Goodwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 2, chapter 5.
ARAUSIO, Battle of (B. C. 105).
See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES: B. C. 113-102.
{124}
ARAVISCI AND OSI, The.
"Whether ... the Aravisci migrated into Pannonia from the Osi,
a German race, or whether the Osi came from the Aravisci into
Germany, as both nations still retain the same language,
institutions and customs, is a doubtful matter."--"The
locality of the Aravisci was the extreme north-eastern part of
the province of Pannonia, and would thus stretch from Vienna
(Vindobona), eastwards to Raab (Arrabo), taking in a portion
of the south-west of Hungary. ... The Osi seem to have dwelt
near the sources of the Oder and the Vistula. They would thus
have occupied a part of Gallicia."
Tacitus, Germany, translated by Church and Brodribb, with
geographical notes.
ARAWAKS, OR ARAUACAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS.
ARAXES, The.
This name seems to have been applied to a number of Asiatic
streams in ancient times, but is connected most prominently
with an Armenian river, now called the Aras, which flows into
the Caspian.
ARBAS, Battle of.
One of the battles of the Romans with the Persians in which
the former suffered defeat. Fought A. D. 581.
G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter
22.
ARBELA, or GAUGAMELA, Battle of (B. C. 331).
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.
ARCADIA.
The central district of Peloponnesus, the great southern
peninsula of Greece--a district surrounded by a singular
mountain circle. "From the circle of mountains which has been
pointed out, all the rivers of any note take their rise, and
from it all the mountainous ranges diverge, which form the
many headlands and points of Peloponnesus. The interior part
of the country, however, has only one opening towards the
western sea, through which all its waters flow united in the
Alpheus. The peculiar character of this inland tract is also
increased by the circumstance of its being intersected by some
lower secondary chains of hills, which compel the waters of
the valleys nearest to the great chains either to form lakes,
or to seek a vent by subterraneous passages. Hence it is that
in the mountainous district in the northeast of Peloponnesus
many streams disappear and again emerge from the earth. This
region is Arcadia; a country consisting of ridges of hills and
elevated plains, and of deep and narrow valleys, with streams
flowing through channels formed by precipitous rocks; a
country so manifestly separated by nature from the rest of
Peloponnesus that, although not politically united, it was
always considered in the light of a single community. Its
climate was extremely cold; the atmosphere dense, particularly
in the mountains to the north; the effect which this had on
the character and dispositions of the inhabitants has been
described in a masterly manner by Polybius, himself a native
of Arcadia."
C. O. Müller, History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
book 1, chapter 4.
"The later Roman poets were wont to speak of Arcadia as a
smiling land, where grassy vales, watered by gentle and
pellucid streams, were inhabited by a race of primitive and
picturesque shepherds and shepherdesses, who divided their
time between tending their flocks and making love to one
another in the most tender and romantic fashion. This idyllic
conception of the country and the people is not to be traced
in the old Hellenic poets, who were better acquainted with the
actual facts of the case. The Arcadians were sufficiently
primitive, but there was very little that was graceful or
picturesque about their land or their lives."
C. H. Hanson, The Land of Greece, pages 381-382.
ARCADIA: B. C. 371-362.
The union of Arcadian towns.
Restoration of Mantineia.
Building of Megalopolis.
Alliance with Thebes.
Wars with Sparta and Elis.
Disunion.
Battle of Mantineia.
See GREECE: B. C. 371, and 371-362.
ARCADIA: B. C. 338.
Territories restored by Philip of Macedon.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
ARCADIA: B. C. 243-146.
In the Achaian League.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
----------ARCADIA: End----------
ARCADIUS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 395-408.
ARCHIPELAGO, The Dukes of the.
See NAXOS: THE MEDIÆVAL DUKEDOM.
ARCHON.
See ATHENS: FROM THE DORIAN MIGRATION TO B. C. 683.
ARCIS-SUR-AUBE, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
ARCOLA, Battle of (1796).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
ARCOT: A. D. 1751.
Capture and defence by Clive.
See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.
ARCOT: A. D. 1780.
Siege and capture by Hyder Ali.
See INDIA: A. D. 1780-1783.
----------ARCOT: End----------
ARDEN, Forest of.
The largest forest in early Britain, which covered the greater
part of modern Warwickshire and "of which Shakespeare's Arden
became the dwindled representative."
J. R. Green, The Making of England, chapter 7.
ARDENNES, Forest of.
"In Cæsar's time there were in [Gaul] very extensive forests,
the largest of which was the Arduenna (Ardennes), which
extended from the banks of the lower Rhine probably as far as
the shores of the North Sea."
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 3, chapter 22.
"Ardennes is the name of one of the northern French
departments which contains a part of the forest Ardennes.
Another part is in Luxemburg and Belgium. The old Celtic name
exists in England in the Arden of Warwickshire."
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 14.
ARDRI, OR ARDRIGH, The.
See TUATH.
ARDSHIR, OR ARTAXERXES,
Founding of the Sassanian monarchy by.
See PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.
ARECOMICI, The.
See VOLCÆ.
ARECUNAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AREIOS.
See ARIA.
ARELATE:
The ancient name of Arles.
The territory covered by the old kingdom of Arles is sometimes
called the Arelate.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378,
and SALYES.
ARENGO, The.
See SAN MARINO, THE REPUBLIC OF.
AREOPAGUS, The.
"Whoever [in ancient Athens] was suspected of having blood
upon his hands had to abstain from approaching the common
altars of the land. Accordingly, for the purpose of judgments
concerning the guilt of blood, choice had been made of the
barren, rocky height which lies opposite the ascent to the
citadel. It was dedicated to Ares, who was said to have been
the first who was ever judged here for the guilt of blood; and
to the Erinyes, the dark powers of the guilt-stained
conscience. Here, instead of a single judge, a college of
twelve men of proved integrity conducted the trial. If the
accused had an equal number of votes for and against him, he
was acquitted. The court on the hill of Ares is one of the
most ancient institutions of Athens, and none achieved for the
city an earlier or more widely-spread recognition."
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 2, chapter 2.
{125}
"The Areopagus, or, as it was interpreted by an ancient
legend, Mars' Hill, was an eminence on the western side of the
Acropolis, which from time immemorial had been the seat of a
highly revered court of criminal justice. It took cognizance
of charges of wilful murder, maiming, poisoning and arson. Its
forms and modes of proceeding were peculiarly rigid and
solemn. It was held in the open air, perhaps that the judges
might not be polluted by sitting under the same roof with the
criminals. ... The venerable character of the court seems to
have determined Solon to apply it to another purpose; and,
without making any change in its original jurisdiction, to
erect it into a supreme council, invested with a
superintending and controlling authority, which extended over
every part of the social system. He constituted it the
guardian of the public morals and religion, to keep watch over
the education and conduct of the citizens, and to protect the
State from the disgrace or pollution of wantonness and
profaneness. He armed it with extraordinary powers of
interfering in pressing emergencies, to avert any sudden and
imminent danger which threatened the public safety. The nature
of its functions rendered it scarcely possible precisely to
define their limits; and Solon probably thought it best to let
them remain in that obscurity which magnifies whatever is
indistinct. ... It was filled with Archons who had discharged
their office with approved fidelity, and they held their seats
for life."
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, volume 1, chapter 11.
These enlarged functions of the Areopagus were withdrawn from
it in the time of Pericles, through the agency of Ephialtes,
but were restored about B. C. 400, after the overthrow of the
Thirty.--"Some of the writers of antiquity ascribed the first
establishment of the senate of Areopagus to Solon. ... But
there can be little doubt that this is a mistake, and that the
senate of Areopagus is a primordial institution of immemorial
antiquity, though its constitution as well as its functions
underwent many changes. It stood at first alone as a permanent
and collegiate authority, originally by the side of the kings
and afterwards by the side of the archons: it would then of
course be known by the title of The Boule,--the senate, or
council; its distinctive title 'senate of Areopagus,' borrowed
from the place where its sittings were held, would not be
bestowed until the formation by Solon of the second senate, or
council, from which there was need to discriminate it."
G. Grote, History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 10 (volume 3).
See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 477-462, and 466-454.
ARETHUSA, Fountain of.
See SYRACUSE.
AREVACÆ, The.
One of the tribes of the Celtiberians in ancient Spain. Their
chief town. Numantia, was the stronghold of Celtiberian
resistance to the Roman conquest.
See NUMANTIAN WAR.
ARGADEIS, The.
See PHYLÆ.
ARGAUM, Battle of (1803).
See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
ARGENTARIA, Battle of (A. D.378).
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 378.
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: Aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.--GUARANI.
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1515-1557.
Discovery, exploration and early settlement on La Plata.
First founding of Buenos Ayres.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.
The final founding of the City of Buenos Ayres.
Conflicts of Spain and Portugal on the Plata.
Creation of the Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres.
"In the year 1580 the foundations of a lasting city were laid
at Buenos Ayres by De Garay on the same situation as had twice
previously been chosen--namely, by Mendoza, and by Cabeza de
Vaca, respectively. The same leader had before this founded
the settlement of Sante Fe on the Paraná. The site selected
for the future capital of the Pampas is probably one of the
worst ever chosen for a city ... has probably the worst
harbour in the world for a large commercial town. ...
Notwithstanding the inconvenience of its harbour, Buenos Ayres
soon became the chief commercial entrepôt of the Valley of the
Plata. The settlement was not effected without some severe
fighting between De Garay's force and the Querandies. The
latter, however, were effectually quelled. ... The Spaniards
were now nominally masters of the Rio de La Plata, but they
had still to apprehend hostilities on the part of the natives
between their few and far-distant settlements [concerning
which see PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557]. Of this liability De
Garay himself was to form a lamentable example. On his passage
back to Asuncion, having incautiously landed to sleep near the
ruins of the old fort of San Espiritu, he was surprised by a
party of natives and murdered, with all his companions. The
death of this brave Biscayan was mourned as a great loss by
the entire colony. The importance of the cities founded by him
was soon apparent; and in 1620 all the settlements south of
the confluence of the rivers Parana and Paraguay were formed
into a separate, independent government, under the name of Rio
de La Plata, of which Buenos Ayres was declared the capital.
This city likewise became the seat of a bishopric. ... The
merchants of Seville, who had obtained a monopoly of the
supply of Mexico and Peru, regarded with much jealousy the
prospect of a new opening for the South American trade by way
of La Plata," and procured restrictions upon it which were
relaxed in 1618 so far as to permit the sending of two vessels
of 100 tons each every year to Spain, but subject to a duty of
50 per cent. "Under this miserable commercial legislation
Buenos Ayres continued to languish for the first century of
its existence. In 1715, after the treaty of Utrecht, the
English ... obtained the 'asiento' or contract for supplying
Spanish colonies in America with African slaves, in virtue of
which they had permission to form an establishment at Buenos
Ayres, and to send thither annually four ships with 1,200
negroes, the value of which they might export in produce of
the country. They were strictly forbidden to introduce other
goods than those necessary for their own establishments; but
under the temptation of gain on the one side and of demand on
the other, the asiento ships naturally became the means of
transacting a considerable contraband trade. ...
{126}
The English were not the only smugglers in the river Plate. By
the treaty of Utrecht, the Portuguese had obtained the
important settlement of Colonia [the first settlement of the
Banda Oriental--or 'Eastern Border'--afterwards called
Uruguay] directly facing Buenos Ayres. ... The Portuguese, ...
not contented with the possession of Colonia ... commenced a
more important settlement near Monte Video. From this place
they were dislodged by Zavala [Governor of Buenos Ayres], who,
by order of his government, proceeded to establish settlements
at that place and at Maldonado. Under the above-detailed
circumstances of contention ... was founded the healthy and
agreeable city of Monte Video. ... The inevitable consequence
of this state of things was fresh antagonism between the two
countries, which it was sought to put an end to by a treaty
between the two nations concluded in 1750. One of the articles
stipulated that Portugal should cede to Spain all of her
establishments on the eastern bank of the Plata; in return for
which she was to receive the seven missionary towns [known as
the 'Seven Reductions'] on the Uruguay. But ... the
inhabitants of the Missions naturally rebelled against the
idea of being handed over to a people known to them only by
their slave-dealing atrocities. ... The result was that when
2,000 natives had been slaughtered [in the war known as the
War of the Seven Reductions] and their settlements reduced to
ruins, the Portuguese repudiated the compact, as they could no
longer receive their equivalent, and they still therefore
retained Colonia. When hostilities were renewed in 1762, the
governor of Buenos Ayres succeeded in possessing himself of
Colonia; but in the following year it was restored to the
Portuguese, who continued in possession until 1777, when it
was definitely ceded to Spain. The continual encroachments of
the Portuguese in the Rio de La Plata, and the impunity with
which the contraband trade was carried on, together with the
questions to which it constantly gave rise with foreign
governments, had long shown the necessity for a change in the
government of that colony; for it was still under the
superintendence of the Viceroy of Peru, residing at Lima,
3,000 miles distant. The Spanish authorities accordingly
resolved to give fresh force to their representatives in the
Rio de La Plata; and in 1776 they took the important
resolution to sever the connection between the provinces of La
Plata and the Viceroyalty of Peru. The former were now erected
into a new Viceroyalty, the capital of which was Buenos Ayres.
... To this Viceroyalty was appointed Don Pedro Cevallos, a
former governor of Buenos Ayres. ... The first act of Cevallos
was to take possession of the island of St. Katherine, the
most important Portuguese possession on the coast of Brazil.
Proceeding thence to the Plate, he razed the fortifications of
Colonia to the ground, and drove the Portuguese from the
neighbourhood. In October of the following year, 1777, a
treaty of peace was signed at St. Ildefonso, between Queen
Maria of Portugal and Charles III. of Spain, by virtue of
which St. Katherine's was restored to the latter country,
whilst Portugal withdrew from the Banda Oriental or Uruguay,
and relinquished all pretensions to the right of navigating
the Rio de La Plata and its affluents beyond its own frontier
line. ... The Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres was sub-divided into
the provinces of--(1.) Buenos Ayres, the capital of which was
the city of that name, and which comprised the Spanish
possessions that now form the Republic of Uruguay, as well as
the Argentine provinces of Buenos Ayres, Santa Fé, Entre Rios,
and Corrientes; (2.) Paraguay, the capital of which was
Asuncion, and which comprised what is now the Republic of
Paraguay; (3.) Tucuman, the capital of which was St. Iago del
Estero, and which included what are to-day the Argentine
provinces of Cordova, Tucuman, St. Iago, Salta, Catamarca,
Rioja, and Jujuy; (4.) Las Charcas or Potosi, the capital of
which was La Plata, and which now forms the Republic of
Bolivia; and (5.) Chiquito or Cuyo, the capital of which was
Mendoza, and in which were comprehended the present Argentine
provinces of St. Luiz, Mendoza, and St. Juan."
R. G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese South America,
volume 13-14.
ALSO IN:
E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 17.
S. H. Wilcocke, History of the Viceroyalty of Buenos
Ayres.
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.
The English invasion.
The Revolution.
Independence achieved.
Confederation of the Provinces of the Plate River and its

dissolution.
"The trade of the Plate River had enormously increased since
the substitution of register ships for the annual flotilla,
and the erection of Buenos Ayres into a viceroyalty in 1778;
but it was not until the war of 1797 that the English became
aware of its real extent. The British cruisers had enough to
do to maintain the blockade: and when the English learned that
millions of hides were rotting in the warehouses of Monte
Video and Buenos Ayres, they concluded that the people would
soon see that their interests would be best served by
submission to the great naval power. The peace put an end to
these ideas; but Pitt's favourite project for destroying
Spanish influence in South America by the English arms was
revived and put in execution soon after the opening of the
second European war in 1803. In 1806 ... he sent a squadron to
the Plate River, which offered the best point of attack to the
British fleet, and the road to the most promising of the
Spanish colonies. The English, under General Beresford, though
few in number, soon took Buenos Ayres, for the Spaniards,
terrified at the sight of British troops, surrendered without
knowing how insignificant the invading force really was. When
they found this out, they mustered courage to attack Beresford
in the citadel; and the English commander was obliged to
evacuate the place. The English soon afterwards took
possession of Monte Video, on the other side of the river.
Here they were joined by another squadron, who were under
orders, after reducing Buenos Ayres, to sail round the Horn,
to take Valparaiso, and establish posts across the continent
connecting that city with Buenos Ayres, thus executing the
long-cherished plan of Lord Anson. Buenos Ayres was therefore
invested a second time. But the English land forces were too
few for their task. The Spaniards spread all round the city
strong breastworks of ox hides, and collected all their forces
for its defence. Buenos Ayres was stormed by the English at
two points on the 5th of July, 1807; but they were unable to
hold their ground against the unceasing fire of the Spaniards,
who were greatly superior in numbers, and the next day they
capitulated, and agreed to evacuate the province within two
months.
{127}
The English had imagined that the colonists would readily
flock to their standard, and throw off the yoke of Spain. This
was a great mistake; and it needed the events of 1808 to lead
the Spanish colonists to their independence. ... In 1810, when
it came to be known that the French armies had crossed the
Sierra Morena, and that Spain was a conquered country, the
colonists would no longer submit to the shadowy authority of
the colonial officers, and elected a junta of their own to
carry on the Government. Most of the troops in the colony went
over to the cause of independence, and easily overcame the
feeble resistance that was made by those who remained faithful
to the regency in the engagement of Las Piedras. The leaders
of the revolution were the advocate Castelli and General
Belgrano; and under their guidance scarcely any obstacle
stopped its progress. They even sent their armies at once into
Upper Peru and the Banda Oriental, and their privateers
carried the Independent flag to the coasts of the Pacific; but
these successes were accompanied by a total anarchy in the
Argentine capital and provinces. The most intelligent and
capable men had gone off to fight for liberty elsewhere; and
even if they had remained it would have been no easy task to
establish a new government over the scattered and
half-civilized population of this vast country. ... The first
result of independence was the formation of a not very
intelligent party of country proprietors, who knew nothing of
the mysteries of politics, and were not ill-content with the
existing order of things. The business of the old viceroyal
government was delegated to a supreme Director; but this
functionary was little more than titular. How limited the
aspirations of the Argentines at first were may be gathered
from the instructions with which Belgrano and Rivadavia were
sent to Europe in 1814. They were to go to England, and ask
for an English protectorate; if possible under an English
prince. They were next to try the same plan in France,
Austria, and Russia, and lastly in Spain itself: and if Spain
still refused, were to offer to renew the subjection of the
colony, on condition of certain specified concessions being
made. This was indeed a strange contrast to the lofty
aspirations of the Colombians. On arriving at Rio, the
Argentine delegates were assured by the English minister, Lord
Strangford, that, as things were, no European power would do
anything for them: nor did they succeed better in Spain
itself. Meanwhile the government of the Buenos Ayres junta was
powerless outside the town, and the country was fast lapsing
into the utmost disorder and confusion. At length, when
Government could hardly be said to exist at all, a general
congress of the provinces of the Plate River assembled at
Tucuman in 1816. It was resolved that all the states should
unite in a confederation to be called the United Provinces of
the Plate River: and a constitution was elaborated, in
imitation of the famous one of the United States, providing
for two legislative chambers and a president. ... The
influence of the capital, of which all the other provinces
were keenly jealous, predominated in the congress; and
Puyrredon, an active Buenos Ayres politician, was made supreme
Director of the Confederation. The people of Buenos Ayres
thought their city destined to exercise over the rural
provinces a similar influence to that which Athens, under
similar circumstances, had exercised in Greece; and able
Buenos Ayreans like Puyrredon, San Martin, and Rivadavia, now
became the leaders of the unitary party. The powerful
provincials, represented by such men as Lopez and Quiroga,
soon found out that the Federal scheme meant the supremacy of
Buenos Ayres, and a political change which would deprive them
of most of their influence. The Federal system, therefore,
could not be expected to last very long; and it did in fact
collapse after four years. Artigas led the revolt in the Banda
Oriental [now Uruguay], and the Riverene Provinces soon
followed the example. For a long time the provinces were
practically under the authority of their local chiefs, the
only semblance of political life being confined to Buenos
Ayres itself."
E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 17.
ALSO IN:
M. G. Mulhall, The English in South America, chapter 10-13,
and 16-18.
J. Miller, Memoirs of General Miller, chapter 3 (volume 1).
T. J. Page, La Plata, the Argentine Confederation and
Paraguay, chapter 31.
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.
Anarchy, civil war, despotism.
The long struggle for order and Confederation.
"A new Congress met in 1819 and made a Constitution for the
country, which was never adopted by all the Provinces.
Pueyrredon resigned, and on June 10th, 1819, José Rondeau was
elected, who, however, was in no condition to pacify the civil
war which had broken out during the government of his
predecessors. At the commencement of 1830, the last 'Director
General' was overthrown; the municipality of the city of
Buenos-Aires seized the government; the Confederation was
declared dissolved, and each of its Provinces received liberty
to organize itself as it pleased. This was anarchy officially
proclaimed. After the fall in the same year of some military
chiefs who had seized the power, Gen. Martin Rodriguez was
named Governor of Buenos-Aires, and he succeeded in
establishing some little order in this chaos. He chose M. J.
Garcia and Bernardo Rivadavia--one of the most enlightened
Argentines of his times--as his Ministers. This
administration did a great deal of good by exchanging
conventions of friendship and commerce, and entering into
diplomatic relations with foreign nations. At the end of his
term General Las Heras--9th May, 1824--took charge of the
government, and called a Constituent Assembly of all the
Provinces, which met at Buenos-Aires, December 16th, and
elected Bernardo Rivadavia President of the newly Confederated
Republic on the 7th February, 1825. This excellent Argentine,
however, found no assistance in the Congress. No understanding
could be come to on the form or the test of the Constitution, nor
yet upon the place of residence for the national Government.
Whilst Rivadavia desired a centralized Constitution--called
here 'unintarian'--and that the city of Buenos-Aires should be
declared capital of the Republic, the majority of Congress
held a different opinion, and this divergence caused the
resignation of the President on the 5th July, 1827. After this
event, the attempt to establish a Confederation which would
include all the Provinces was considered as defeated, and each
Province went on its own way, whilst Buenos-Aires elected
Manuel Dorrego, the chief of the federal party, for its
Governor.
{128}
He was inaugurated on the 13th August, 1827, and at once
undertook to organize a new Confederation of the Provinces,
opening relations to this end with the Government of Cordoba,
the most important Province of the interior. He succeeded in
reëstablishing repose in the interior, and was instrumental in
preserving a general peace, even beyond the limits of his
young country. The Emperor of Brazil did not wish to
acknowledge the rights of the United Provinces over the
Cisplatine province, or Banda Oriental [now Uruguay]. He
wished to annex it to his empire, and declared war to the
Argentine Republic on the 10th of December, 1826. An army was
soon organized by the latter, under the command of General
Alvear, which on the 20th of February, 1827, gained a complete
victory over the Brazilian forces--twice their number--at the
plains of Ituzaingó, in the Brazilian province of Rio Grande
do Sul. The navy of the Argentines also triumphed on several
occasions, so that when England offered her intervention,
Brazil renounced all claim to the territory of Uruguay by the
convention of the 27th August, 1828, and the two parties
agreed to recognize and to maintain the neutrality and
independence of that country. Dorrego, however, had but few
sympathies in the army, and a short time after his return from
Brazil, the soldiers under Lavalle rebelled and forced him to
fly to the country on the 1st December of the same year. There
he found aid from the Commander General of the country
districts, Juan Manuel Rosas, and formed a small battalion
with the intention of marching on the city of Buenos-Aires.
But Lavalle triumphed, took him prisoner, and shot him without
trial on the 13th December. ... Not only did the whole
interior of the province of Buenos-Aires rise against Lavalle,
under the direction of Rosas, but also a large part of other
Provinces considered this event as a declaration of war, and
the National Congress, then assembled at Santa-Fé, declared
Lavalle's government illegal. The two parties fought with real
fury, but in 1829, after an interview between Rosas and
Lavalle, a temporary reconciliation was effected. ... The
legislature of Buenos-Aires, which had been convoked on
account of the reconciliation between Lavalle and Rosas,
elected the latter as Governor of the Province, on December
6th, 1829, and accorded to him extraordinary powers. ...
During this the first period of his government he did not
appear in his true nature, and at its conclusion he refused a
re-election and retired to the country. General Juan R.
Balcarce was then--17th December, 1832--named Governor, but
could only maintain himself some eleven months: Viamont
succeeded him, also for a short time only. Now the moment had
come for Rosas. He accepted the almost unlimited Dictatorship
which was offered to him on the 7th March, 1835, and reigned
in a horrible manner, like a madman, until his fall. Several
times the attempt was made to deliver Buenos-Aires from his
terrible yoke, and above all the devoted and valiant efforts
of General Lavalle deserve to be mentioned; but all was in
vain; Rosas remained unshaken. Finally, General Justo José De
Urquiza, Governor of the province of Entre-Rios, in alliance
with the province of Corrientes and the Empire of Brazil, rose
against the Dictator. He first delivered the Republic of
Uruguay, and the city of Monte Video--the asylum of the
adversaries of Rosas--from the army which besieged it, and
thereafter passing the great river Parana, with a relatively
large army, he completely defeated Rosas at Monte-Caseros,
near Buenos-Aires, on the 3rd February, 1852. During the same
day, Rosas sought and received the protection of an English
war-vessel which was in the road of Buenos-Aires, in which he
went to England, where he still [1876] resides. Meantime
Urquiza took charge of the Government of the United Provinces,
under the title of 'Provisional Director,' and called a
general meeting of the Governors at San Nicolás, a frontier
village on the north of the province of Buenos-Aires. This
assemblage confirmed him in his temporary power, and called a
National Congress which met at Santa-Fé and made a National
Constitution under date of 25th May, 1853. By virtue of this
Constitution the Congress met again the following year at
Parana, a city of Entre-Rios, which had been made the capital,
and on the 5th May, elected General Urquiza the first
President of the Argentine Confederation. ... The important
province of Buenos-Aires, however, had taken no part in the
deliberations of the Congress. Previously, on the 11th
September 1852, a revolution against Urquiza, or rather
against the Provincial Government in alliance with him, had
taken place and caused a temporary separation of the Province
from the Republic. Several efforts to pacify the disputes
utterly failed, and a battle took place at Cepeda in Santa-Fé,
wherein Urquiza, who commanded the provincial troops, was
victorious, although his success led to no definite result. A
short time after, the two armies met again at Pavon--near the
site of the former battle--and Buenos-Aires won the day. This
secured the unity of the Republic of which the victorious
General Bartolomé Mitre was elected President for six years
from October, 1862. At the same time the National Government
was transferred from Paraná to Buenos-Aires, and the latter
was declared the temporary capital of the Nation. The Republic
owes much to the Government of Mitre, and it is probable that
he would have done more good, if war had not broken out with
Paraguay, in 1865 [see PARAGUAY]. The Argentines took part in
it as one of the three allied States against the Dictator of
Paraguay, Francisco Solano Lopez. On the 12th October, 1868,
Domingo Faustino Sarmiento succeeded Gen. Mitre in the
Presidency. ... The 12th October, 1874, Dr. Nicolas Avellaneda
succeeded him in the Government."
R. Napp, The Argentine Republic, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
D. F. Sarmiento, Life in the Argentine Republic in the
Days of the Tyrants.
J. A. King, Twenty-four years in the Argentine
Republic.
{129}
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1880-1891.
The Constitution and its working.
Governmental corruption.
The Revolution of 1890, and the financial collapse.
"The Argentine constitutional system in its outward form
corresponds closely to that of the United States. ... But the
inward grace of enlightened public opinion is lacking, and
political practice falls below the level of a self-governing
democracy. Congress enacts laws, but the President as
commander-in-chief of the army, and as the head of a civil
service dependent upon his will and caprice, possesses
absolute authority in administration. The country is governed
by executive decrees rather than by constitutional laws.
Elections are carried by military pressure and manipulation of
the civil service. ... President Roca [who succeeded
Avellaneda in 1880] virtually nominated, and elected his
brother-in-law, Juarez Célman, as his successor. President
Juarez set his heart upon controlling the succession in the
interest of one of his relatives, a prominent official; but
was forced to retire before he could carry out his purpose.
... Nothing in the Argentine surprised me more than the
boldness and freedom with which the press attacked the
government of the day and exposed its corruption. ... The
government paid no heed to these attacks. Ministers did not
trouble themselves to repel charges affecting their integrity.
... This wholesome criticism from an independent press had one
important effect. It gave direction to public opinion in the
capital, and involved the organization of the Unión Cívica. If
the country had not been on the verge of a financial
revulsion, there might not have been the revolt against the
Juarez administration in July, 1890; but with ruin and
disaster confronting them, men turned against the President
whose incompetence and venality would have been condoned if
the times had been good. The Unión Cívica was founded when the
government was charged with maladministration in sanctioning
an illegal issue of $40,000,000 of paper money. ... The
government was suddenly confronted with an armed coalition of
the best battalions of the army, the entire navy, and the Unión
Cívica. The manifesto issued by the Revolutionary Junta was a
terrible arraignment of the political crimes of the Juarez
Government. ... The revolution opened with every prospect of
success. It failed from the incapacity of the leaders to
co-operate harmoniously. On July 19, 1890, the defection of
the army was discovered. On July 26 the revolt broke out. For
four days there was bloodshed without definite plan or
purpose. No determined attack was made upon the government
palace. The fleet opened a fantastic bombardment upon the
suburbs. There was inexplicable mismanagement of the insurgent
forces, and on July 29 an ignominious surrender to the
government with a proclamation of general amnesty. General
Roca remained behind the scenes, apparently master of the
situation, while President Juarez had fled to a place of
refuge on the Rosario railway, and two factions of the army
were playing at cross purposes, and the police and the
volunteers of the Unión Cívica were shooting women and
children in the streets. Another week of hopeless confusion
passed, and General Roca announced the resignation of
President Juarez and the succession of vice-President
Pellegrini. Then the city was illuminated, and for three days
there was a pandemonium of popular rejoicing over a victory
which nobody except General Roca understood. ... In June,
1891, the deplorable state of Argentine finance was revealed
in a luminous statement made by President Pellegrini. ... All
business interests were stagnant. Immigration had been
diverted to Brazil. ... All industries were prostrated except
politics, and the pernicious activity displayed by factions
was an evil augury for the return of prosperity. ... During
thirty years the country has trebled its population, its
increase being relatively much more rapid than that of the
United States during the same period. The estimate of the
present population [1892] is 4,000,000 in place of 1,160,000
in 1857. ... Disastrous as the results of political government
and financial disorder have been in the Argentine, its
ultimate recovery by slow stages is probable. It has a
magnificent railway system, an industrious working population
recruited from Europe, and nearly all the material appliances
for progress."
I. N. Ford. Tropical America, chapter 6.
See CONSTITUTION, ARGENTINE.
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1892.
Presidential Election.
Dr. Luis Saenz-Pena, former Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, and reputed to be a man of great integrity and ability,
was chosen President, and inaugurated October 12, 1892.
----------ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: End----------
ARGINUSAE, Battle of.
See GREECE: B. C. 406.
ARGONAUTIC EXPEDITION, The.
"The ship Argo was the theme of many songs during the oldest
periods of the Grecian Epic, even earlier than the Odyssey.
The king Æêtês, from whom she is departing, the hero Jason,
who commands her, and the goddess Hêrê, who watches over him,
enabling the Argo to traverse distances and to escape dangers
which no ship had ever before encountered, are all
circumstances briefly glanced at by Odysseus in his narrative
to Alkinous. ... Jason, commanded by Pelias to depart in quest
of the golden fleece belonging to the speaking ram which had
carried away Phryxus and Hellé, was encouraged by the oracle
to invite the noblest youth of Greece to his aid, and fifty of
the most distinguished amongst them obeyed the call. Hêraklês,
Thêseus, Telamôn and Pêleus, Kastor and Pollux, Idas and
Lynkeus--Zêtês and Kalaïs, the winged sons of
Boreas--Meleager, Amphiaraus, Kêpheus, Laertês, Autolykus,
Menœtius, Aktor, Erginus, Euphêmus, Ankæus, Pœas,
Periklymenus, Augeas, Eurytus, Admêtus, Akastus, Kæneus,
Euryalus, Pêneleôs and Lêitus, Askalaphus and Ialmenus, were
among them. ... Since so many able men have treated it as an
undisputed reality, and even made it the pivot of systematic
chronological calculations, I may here repeat the opinion long
ago expressed by Heyne, and even indicated by Burmann, that
the process of dissecting the story, in search of a basis of
fact, is one altogether fruitless."
G. Grote, History of Greece, volume 1, part 1, chapter 13.
"In the rich cluster of myths which surround the captain of
the Argo and his fellows are preserved to us the whole life
and doings of the Greek maritime tribes, which gradually
united all the coasts with one another, and attracted Hellenes
dwelling in the most different seats into the sphere of their
activity. ... The Argo was said to have weighed anchor from a
variety of ports--from Iplcus in Thessaly, from Anthedon and
Siphæ in Bœotia: the home of Jason himself was on Mount Pelion
by the sea, and again on Lemnos and in Corinth; a clear proof
of how homogeneous were the influences running on various
coasts. However, the myths of the Argo were developed in the
greatest completeness on the Pagasean gulf, in the seats of
the Minyi; and they are the first with whom a perceptible
movement of the Pelasgian tribes beyond the sea--in other
words, a Greek history in Europe--begins."
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 2-3.
{130}
ARGOS.--ARGOLIS.--ARGIVES.
"No district of Greece contains so dense a succession of
powerful citadels in a narrow space as Argolis [the eastern
peninsular projection of the Peloponnesus]. Lofty Larissa,
apparently designed by nature as the centre of the district,
is succeeded by Mycenæ, deep in the recess of the land; at the
foot of the mountain lies Midea, at the brink of the sea-coast
Tiryns; and lastly, at a farther distance of half an hour's
march, Nauplia, with its harbour. This succession of ancient
fastnesses, whose indestructible structure of stone we admire
to this day [see Schliemann's 'Mycenæ' and 'Tiryns'] is clear
evidence of mighty conflicts which agitated the earliest days
of Argos; and proves that in this one plain of Inachus several
principalities must have arisen by the side of one another,
each putting its confidence in the walls of its citadel; some,
according to their position, maintaining an intercourse with
other lands by sea, others rather a connection with the inland
country. The evidence preserved by these monuments is borne
out by that of the myths, according to which the dominion of
Danaus is divided among his successors. Exiled Prœtus is
brought home to Argos by Lycian bands, with whose help he
builds the coast-fortress of Tiryns, where he holds sway as
the first and mightiest in the land. ... The other line of the
Danaidæ is also intimately connected with Lycia; for Perseus.
... [who] on his return from the East founds Mycenæ, as the
new regal seat of the united kingdom of Argos, is himself
essentially a Lycian hero of light, belonging to the religion
of Apollo. ... Finally, Heracles himself is connected with the
family of the Perseidæ, as a prince born on the Tirynthian
fastness. ... During these divisions in the house of Danaus,
and the misfortunes befalling that of Prœtus, foreign families
acquire influence and dominion in Argos: these are of the race
of Æolus, and originally belong to the harbour-country of the
western coast of Peloponnesus--the Amythaonidæ. ... While the
dominion of the Argive land was thus sub-divided, and the
native warrior nobility subsequently exhausted itself in
savage internal feuds, a new royal house succeeded in grasping
the supreme power and giving an entirely new importance to the
country. This house was that of the Tantalidæ [or PELOPIDS,
which see], united with the forces of Achæan population. ...
The residue of fact is, that the ancient dynasty, connected by
descent with Lycia, was overthrown by the house which derived
its origin from Lydia. ... The poetic myths, abhorring long
rows of names, mention three princes as ruling here in
succession, one leaving the sceptre of Pelops to the other,
viz., Atreus, Thyestes and Agamemnon. Mycenæ is the chief seat
of their rule, which is not restricted to the district of
Argos."
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 3.
After the Doric invasion of the Peloponnesus (see GREECE: THE
MIGRATIONS; also, DORIANS AND IONIANS), Argos appears in Greek
history as a Doric state, originally the foremost one in power
and influence, but humiliated after long years of rivalry by
her Spartan neighbours. "Argos never forgot that she had once
been the chief power in the peninsula, and her feeling towards
Sparta was that of a jealous but impotent competitor. By what
steps the decline of her power had taken place, we are unable
to make out, nor can we trace the succession of her kings
subsequent to Pheidon [8th century B. C.]. ... The title [of
king] existed (though probably with very limited functions) at
the time of the Persian War [B. C. 490-479]. ... There is some
ground for presuming that the king of Argos was even at that
time a Herakleid--since the Spartans offered to him a third
part of the command of the Hellenic force, conjointly with
their own two kings. The conquest of Thyreates by the Spartans
[about 547 B. C.] deprived the Argeians of a valuable portion
of their Periœkis, or dependent territory. But Orneæ and the
remaining portion of Kynuria still continued to belong to
them: the plain round their city was very productive; and,
except Sparta, there was no other power in Peloponnesus
superior to them. Mykenæ and Tiryns, nevertheless, seem both
to have been independent states at the time of the Persian
War, since both sent contingents to the battle of Platæa, at a
time when Argos held aloof and rather favoured the Persians."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 8 (volume 2).
ARGOS: B. C. 496-421.
Calamitous War with Sparta.
Non-action in the Persian War.
Slow recovery of the crippled State.
"One of the heaviest blows which Argos ever sustained at the
hand of her traditional foe befell her about 496 B. C., six
years before the first Persian invasion of Greece. A war with
Sparta having broken out, Cleomenes, the Lacedæmonian king,
succeeded in landing a large army, in vessels he had extorted
from the Æginetans, at Nauplia, and ravaged the Argive
territory. The Argeians mustered all their forces to resist
him, and the two armies encamp cd opposite each other near
Tiryns. Cleomenes, however, contrived to attack the Argeians
at a moment when they were unprepared, making use, if
Herodotus is to be credited, of a stratagem which proves the
extreme incapacity of the opposing generals, and completely
routed them. The Argeians took refuge in a sacred grove, to
which the remorseless Spartans set fire, and so destroyed
almost the whole of them. No fewer than 6,000 of the citizens
of Argos perished on this disastrous day. Cleomenes might have
captured the city itself; but he was, or affected to be,
hindered by unfavourable omens, and drew off his troops. The
loss sustained by Argos was so severe as to reduce her for
some years to a condition of great weakness; but this was at
the time a fortunate circumstance for the Hellenic cause,
inasmuch as it enabled the Lacedæmonians to devote their whole
energies to the work of resistance to the Persian invasion
without fear of enemies at home. In this great work Argos took
no part, on the occasion of either the first or second attempt
of the Persian kings to bring Hellas under their dominion.
Indeed, the city was strongly suspected of 'medising'
tendencies. In the period following the final overthrow of the
Persians, while Athens was pursuing the splendid career of
aggrandisement and conquest that made her the foremost state
in Greece, and while the Lacedæmonians were paralyzed by the
revolt of the Messenians, Argos regained strength and
influence, which she at once employed and increased by the
harsh policy ... of depopulating Mycenæ and Tiryns, while she
compelled several other semi-independent places in the Argolid
to acknowledge her supremacy. During the first eleven years of
the Peloponnesian war, down to the peace of Nicias (421 B.
C.), Argos held aloof from all participation in the struggle,
adding to her wealth and perfecting her military organization.
As to her domestic conditions and political system, little is
known; but it is certain that the government, unlike that of
other Dorian states, was democratic in its character, though
there was in the city a strong oligarchic and philo-Laconian
party, which was destined to exercise a decisive influence at
an important crisis."
C. H. Hanson, The Land of Greece, chapter 10.
ALSO IN:
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 36 (volume 4).
{131}
ARGOS: B. C. 421-418.
League formed against Sparta.
Outbreak of War.
Defeat at Mantinea.
Revolution in the Oligarchical and Spartan interest.
See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.
ARGOS: B. C. 395-387.
Confederacy against Sparta.
The Corinthian War.
Peace of Antalcidas.
See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
ARGOS: B. C. 371.
Mob outbreak and massacre of chief citizens.
See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.
ARGOS: B. C. 338.
Territories restored by Philip of Macedon.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
ARGOS: B. C. 271.
Repulse and death of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.
ARGOS: B. C. 229.
Liberated from Macedonian control.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
ARGOS: A. D. 267.--Ravaged by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.
ARGOS: A. D. 395.--Plundered by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 395.
ARGOS: A. D. 1463.
Taken by the Turks, retaken by the Venetians.
See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.
ARGOS: A. D. 1686.--Taken by the Venetians.
See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.
----------ARGOS: End----------
ARGYRASPIDES, The.
"He [Alexander the Great] then marched into India, that he
might have his empire bounded by the ocean, and the extreme
parts of the East. That the equipments of his army might be
suitable to the glory of the Expedition, he mounted the
trappings of the horses and the arms of the soldiers with
silver, and called a body of his men, from having silver
shields, Argyraspides."
Justin, History (translated by J. S. Watson),
book 12, chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 58.
See, also, MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.
ARGYRE.
See CHRYSE.
ARIA.--AREIOS.--AREIANS.
The name by which the Herirud and its valley, the district of
modern Herat, was known to the ancient Greeks. Its inhabitants
were known as the Areians.
M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 7, chapter 1.
ARIANA.
"Strabo uses the name Ariana for the land of all the nations
of Iran, except that of the Medes and Persians, i. e., for the
whole eastern half of Iran."--Afghanistan and Beloochistan.
M. Duncker, History of Antiquity,
volume 5, book 7, chapter 1.
ARIANISM.--ARIANS.
From the second century of its existence, the Christian church
was divided by bitter controversies touching the mystery of
the Trinity. "The word Trinity is found neither in the Holy
Scriptures nor in the writings of the first Christians; but it
had been employed from the beginning of the second century,
when a more metaphysical turn had been given to the minds of
men, and theologians had begun to attempt to explain the
divine nature. ... The Founder of the new religion, the Being
who had brought upon earth a divine light, was he God, was he
man, was he of an intermediate nature, and, though superior to
all other created beings, yet himself created? This latter
opinion was held by Arius, an Alexandrian priest, who
maintained it in a series of learned controversial works
between the years 318 and 325. As soon as the discussion had
quitted the walls of the schools, and been taken up by the
people, mutual accusations of the gravest kind took the place
of metaphysical subtleties. The orthodox party reproached the
Arians with blaspheming the deity himself, by refusing to
acknowledge him in the person of Christ. The Arians accused
the orthodox of violating the fundamental law of religion; by
rendering to the creature the worship due only to the Creator.
... It was difficult to decide which numbered the largest body
of followers; but the ardent enthusiastic spirits, the
populace in all the great cities (and especially at
Alexandria) the women, and the newly-founded order of the
monks of the desert ... were almost without exception
partisans of the faith which has since been declared orthodox.
... Constantine thought this question of dogma might be
decided by an assembly of the whole church. In the year 325,
he convoked the council of Nice [see NICÆA, COUNCIL OF], at
which 300 bishops pronounced in favour of the equality of the
Son with the Father, or the doctrine generally regarded as
orthodox, and condemned the Arians to exile and their books to
the flames."
J. C. L. de Sismondi, Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 4.
"The victorious faction [at the Council of Nice] ... anxiously
sought for some irreconcilable mark of distinction, the
rejection of which might involve the Arians in the guilt and
consequences of heresy. A letter was publicly read and
ignominiously torn, in which their patron, Eusebius of
Nicomedia, ingeniously confessed that the admission of the
homoousion, or consubstantial, a word already familiar to the
Platonists, was incompatible with the principles of their
theological system. The fortunate opportunity was eagerly
embraced. ... The consubstantiality of the Father and the Son
was established by the Council of Nice, and has been
unanimously received as a fundamental article of the Christian
faith by the consent of the Greek, the Latin, the Oriental and
the Protestant churches." Notwithstanding the decision of the
Council of Nice against it, the heresy of Arius continued to
gain ground in the East. Even the Emperor Constantine became
friendly to it, and the sons of Constantine, with some of the
later emperors who followed them on the eastern throne, were
ardent Arians in belief. The Homoousians, or orthodox, were
subjected to persecution, which was directed with special
bitterness against their great leader, Athanasius, the famous
bishop of Alexandria. But Arianism was weakened by
hair-splitting distinctions, which resulted in many diverging
creeds. "The sect which asserted the doctrine of a 'similar
substance' was the most numerous, at least in the provinces of
Asia. ... The Greek word which was chosen to express this
mysterious resemblance bears so close an affinity to the
orthodox symbol, that the profane of every age have derided
the furious contests which the difference of a single
diphthong excited between the Homoousians and the
Homoiousians."
{132}
The Latin churches of the West, with Rome at their head,
remained generally firm in the orthodoxy of the Homoousian
creed. But the Goths, who had received their Christianity from
the East, tinctured with Arianism, carried that heresy
westward, and spread it among their barbarian neighbors--
Vandals, Burgundians and Sueves--through the influence of the
Gothic Bible of Ulfilas, which he and his missionary
successors bore to the Teutonic peoples. "The Vandals and
Ostrogoths persevered in the profession of Arianism till the
final ruin [A. D. 533 and 553] of the kingdoms which they had
founded in Africa and Italy. The barbarians of Gaul submitted
[A. D. 507] to the orthodox dominion of the Franks: and Spain
was restored to the Catholic Church by the voluntary
conversion of the Visigoths [A. D. 589]."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapters 21 and 37.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
Theodosius formally proclaimed his adhesion to Trinitarian
orthodoxy by his celebrated edict of A. D. 380, and commanded
its acceptance in the Eastern Empire.
See ROME: A. D. 379-395.
A. Neander, General History of Christian. Religion
and Church, translated by Torry, volume 2, section 4.
ALSO IN:
J. Alzog, Manual of Univ. Ch. History, section 110-114.
W. G. T. Shedd, History of Christian Doctrine, book 3.
J. H. Newman, Arians of the Fourth Century.
A. P. Stanley, Lectures on the History of the
Eastern Church, lectures 3-7.
J. A. Dorner, History of the Development of the Doctrine
of the Person of Christ, division 1 (volume 2).
See, also,
GOTHS: A. D. 341-381;
FRANKS: A. D. 481-511;
also, GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-509.
ARICA, Battle of (1880).
See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.
ARICIA, Battle of.
A victory won by the Romans over the Auruncians, B. C. 497,
which summarily ended a war that the latter had declared
against the former.
Livy, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 26.
ARICIAN GROVE, The.
The sacred grove at Aricia (one of the towns of old Latium,
near Alba Longa) was the center and meeting-place of an early
league among the Latin peoples, about which little is known.
W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 3.
Sir. W. Gell, Topography of Rome, volume 1.
"On the northern shore of the lake [of Nemi] right under the
precipitous cliffs on which the modern village of Nemi is
perched, stood the sacred grove and sanctuary of Diana
Nemorensis, or Diana of the Wood. ... The site was excavated
in 1885 by Sir John Saville Lumley, English ambassador at
Rome. For a general description of the site and excavations,
see the Athenæum, 10th October, 1885. For details of
the finds see 'Bulletino dell' Instituto di Corrispondenza
Archeologica,' 1885.--The lake and the grove were
sometimes known as the lake and grove of Aricia. But the town
of Aricia (the modern La Riccia) was situated about three
miles off, at the foot of the Alban Mount. ... According to
one story, the worship of Diana at Nemi was instituted by
Orestes, who, after killing Thoas, King of the Tauric
Chersonese (the Crimea), fled with his sister to Italy,
bringing with him the image of the Tauric Diana. ... Within
the sanctuary at Nemi grew a certain tree, of which no branch
might be broken. Only a runaway slave was allowed to break
off, if he could, one of its boughs. Success in the attempt
entitled him to fight the priest in single combat, and if he
slew him he reigned in his stead with the title of King of the
Wood (Rex Nemorensis). Tradition averred that the fateful
branch was that Golden Bough which, at the Sibyl's bidding,
Æneas plucked before he essayed the perilous journey to the
world of the dead. ... This rule of succession by the sword
was observed down to imperial times; for amongst his other
freaks Caligula, thinking that the priest of Nemi had held
office too long, hired a more stalwart ruffian to slay him."
J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough, chapter 1, section 1.
ARICONIUM.
A town of Roman Britain which appears to have been the
principal mart of the iron manufacturing industry in the
Forest of Dean.
T. Wright, The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon,
page 161.
ARII, The.
See LYGIANS.
ARIKARAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
ARIMINUM.
The Roman colony, planted in the third century B. C., which
grew into the modern city of Rimini. See ROME: B. C.
295-191.--When Cæsar entered Italy as an invader, crossing the
frontier of Cisalpine Gaul--the Rubicon--his first movement
was to occupy Ariminum. He halted there for two or three
weeks, making his preparations for the civil war which he had
now entered upon and waiting for the two legions that he had
ordered from Gaul.
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 14.
ARIOVALDUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 626-638.
ARISTEIDES, Ascendancy of.
See ATHENS: B. C. 477-462.
ARISTOCRACY.--OLIGARCHY.
"Aristocracy signifies the rule of the best men. If, however,
this epithet is referred to an absolute ideal standard of
excellence, it is manifest that an aristocratical government
is a mere abstract notion, which has nothing in history, or in
nature, to correspond to it. But if we content ourselves with
taking the same terms in a relative sense, ... aristocracy ...
will be that form of government in which the ruling few are
distinguished from the multitude by illustrious birth,
hereditary wealth, and personal merit. ... Whenever such a
change took place in the character or the relative position of
the ruling body, that it no longer commanded the respect of
its subjects, but found itself opposed to them, and compelled
to direct its measures chiefly to the preservation of its
power, it ceased to be, in the Greek sense an aristocracy; it
became a faction, an oligarchy."
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 10.
ARISTOMNEAN WAR.
See MESSENIAN WARS, FIRST AND SECOND.
ARIZONA: The Name.
"Arizona, probably Arizonac in its original form, was the
native and probably Pima name of the place of a hill, valley,
stream, or some other local feature--just south of the modern
boundary, in the mountains still so called, on the head waters
of the stream flowing past Saric, where the famous Planchas de
Plata mine was discovered in the middle of the 18th century,
the name being first known to Spaniards in that connection and
being applied to the mining camp or real de minas. The
aboriginal meaning of the term is not known, though from the
common occurrence in this region of the prefix 'ari,' the root
'son,' and the termination 'ac,' the derivation ought not to
escape the research of a competent student. Such guesses as
are extant, founded on the native tongues, offer only the
barest possibility of a partial and accidental accuracy; while
similar derivations from the Spanish are extremely absurd. ...
The name should properly be written and pronounced Arisona, as
our English sound of the z does not occur in Spanish."
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
volume 12, page 520.
{133}
ARIZONA:
Aboriginal Inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS, APACHE GROUP, SHOSHONEAN
FAMILY, AND UTAHS.
ARIZONA: A. D. 1848.
Partial acquisition from Mexico.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.
ARIZONA: A. D. 1853.
Purchase by the United States of the southern part from Mexico.
The Gadsden Treaty.
"On December 30, 1853, James Gadsden, United States minister
to Mexico, concluded a treaty by which the boundary line was
moved southward so as to give the United States, for a
monetary consideration of $10,000,000, all of modern Arizona
south of the Gila, an effort so to fix the line as to include
a port on the gulf being unsuccessful. ... On the face of the
matter this Gadsden treaty was a tolerably satisfactory
settlement of a boundary dispute, and a purchase by the United
States of a route for a southern railroad to California."
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 12,
chapter 20.
----------ARIZONA: End----------
ARKANSAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1542
Entered by Hernando de Soto.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1803.
Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1819-1836.
Detached from Missouri.
Organized as a Territory.
Admitted as a State.
"Preparatory to the assumption of state government, the limits
of the Missouri Territory were restricted on the south by the
parallel of 36° 30' North. The restriction was made by an act
of Congress, approved March 3, 1819, entitled an 'Act
establishing a separate territorial government in the southern
portion of the Missouri Territory.' The portion thus separated
was subsequently organized into the second grade of territorial
government, and Colonel James Miller, a meritorious and
distinguished officer of the Northwestern army, was appointed
first governor. This territory was known as the Arkansas
Territory, and, at the period of its first organization,
contained an aggregate of nearly 14,000 inhabitants. Its
limits comprised all the territory on the west side of the
Mississippi between the parallels 33° and 36° 30', or between
the northern limit of Louisiana and the southern boundary of
the State of Missouri. On the west it extended indefinitely to
the Mexican territories, at least 550 miles. The Post of
Arkansas was made the seat of the new government. The
population of this extensive territory for several years was
comprised chiefly in the settlements upon the tributaries of
White River and the St. Francis; upon the Mississippi, between
New Madrid and Point Chicot; and upon both sides of the
Arkansas River, within 100 miles of its mouth, but especially
in the vicinity of the Post of Arkansas. ... So feeble was the
attraction in this remote region for the active, industrious,
and well-disposed portion of the western pioneers, that the
Arkansas Territory, in 1830, ten years after its organization,
had acquired an aggregate of only 30,388 souls, including
4,576 slaves. ... The western half of the territory had been
erected, in 1824, into a separate district, to be reserved for
the future residence of the Indian tribes, and to be known as
the Indian Territory. From this time the tide of emigration
began to set more actively into Arkansas, as well as into
other portions of the southwest. ... The territory increased
rapidly for several years, and the census of 1835 gave the
whole number of inhabitants at 58,134 souls, including 9,630
slaves. Thus the Arkansas Territory in the last five years had
doubled its population. ... The people, through the General
Assembly, made application to Congress for authority to
establish a regular form of state government. The assent of
Congress was not withheld, and a Convention was authorized to
meet at Little Rock on the first day of January, 1836, for the
purpose of forming and adopting a State Constitution. The same
was approved by Congress, and on the 13th of June following
the State of Arkansas was admitted into the Federal Union as
an independent state, and was, in point of time and order, the
twenty-fifth in the confederacy. ... Like the Missouri
Territory, Arkansas had been a slaveholding country from the
earliest French colonies. Of course, the institution of negro
slavery, with proper checks and limits, was sustained by the
new Constitution."
J. W. Monette, Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of
the Mississippi, book 5, chapter 17 (volume 2).
See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1861 (March).
Secession voted down.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MARCH-APRIL).
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1861 (April).
Governor Rector's reply to President Lincoln's call for
troops.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1862 (January-March).
Advance of National forces into the State.
Battle of Pea Ridge.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1862 (July-September).
Progress of the Civil War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).
ARKANSAS: A. D.1862(December).
The Battle of Prairie Grove.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.
1862 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1863 (January).
The capture of Arkansas Post from the Confederates.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JANUARY: ARKANSAS).
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1863 (July).
The defence of Helena.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1863 (August-October).
The breaking of Confederate authority.
Occupation of Little Rock by National forces.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(AUGUST-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-Missouri).
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1864 (March-October).
Last important operations of the War.
Price's Raid.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).
{134}
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1864.
First steps toward Reconstruction.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1865-1868.
Reconstruction completed.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D.1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.
----------ARKANSAS: End----------
ARKITES, The.
A Canaanite tribe who occupied the plain north of Lebanon.
ARKWRIGHT'S SPINNING MACHINE, OR WATER-FRAME, The invention of.
See COTTON MANUFACTURE.
ARLES: Origin.
See SALVES.
ARLES: A. D. 411.--Double siege.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.
ARLES: A. D. 425.--Besieged by the Goths.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 419-451.
ARLES: A. D. 508-510.
Siege by the Franks.
After the overthrow of the Visigothic kingdom of Toulouse, A.
D. 507, by the victory of Clovis, king of the Franks, at
Voclad, near Poitiers, "the great city of Aries, once the
Roman capital of Gaul, maintained a gallant defence against
the united Franks and Burgundians, and saved for generations
the Visigothic rule in Provence and southern Languedoc. Of the
siege, which lasted apparently from 508 to 510, we have some
graphic details in the life of St. Cæsarius, Bishop of Aries,
written by his disciples." The city was relieved in 510 by an
Ostrogothic army, sent by king Theodoric of Italy, after a
great battle in which 30,000 Franks were reported to be slain.
"The result of the battle of Aries was to put Theodoric in
secure possession of all Provence and of so much of Languedoc
as was needful to ensure his access to Spain"--where the
Ostrogothic king, as guardian of his infant grandson,
Amalaric, was taking care of the Visigothic kingdom.
T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 4, chapter 9.
ARLES: A. D. 933.
Formation of the kingdom.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.

ARLES: A. D. 1032-1378.
The breaking up of the kingdom and its gradual absorption in
France.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032, and 1127-1378.
ARLES: 1092-1207.
The gay court of Provence.
See PROVENCE: A. D. 943-1092, and 1179-1207.
----------ARLES: End----------
ARMADA, The Spanish.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.
ARMAGEDDON.
See MEGIDDO.
ARMAGH, St. Patrick's School at.
See IRELAND: 5th to 8th CENTURIES.
ARMAGNAC, The counts of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1327.
ARMAGNACS.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415, and 1415-1419.
ARMENIA:
"Almost immediately to the west of the Caspian there rises a
high table-land diversified by mountains, which stretches
eastward for more than eighteen degrees, between the 37th and
41st parallels. This highland may properly be regarded as a
continuation of the great Iranean plateau, with which it is
connected at its southeastern corner. It comprises a portion
of the modern Persia, the whole of Armenia, and most of Asia
Minor. Its principal mountain ranges are latitudinal, or from
west to east, only the minor ones taking the opposite or
longitudinal direction. ... The heart of the mountain-region,
the tract extending from the district of Erivan on the east to
the upper course of the Kizil·Irmak river and the vicinity of
Sivas upon the west, was, as it still is, Armenia. Amidst
these natural fastnesses, in a country of lofty ridges, deep
and narrow valleys, numerous and copious streams, and
occasional broad plains--a country of rich pasture grounds,
productive orchards, and abundant harvests--this interesting
people has maintained itself almost unchanged from the time of
the early Persian kings to the present day. Armenia was one of
the most valuable portions of the Persian empire, furnishing,
as it did, besides stone and timber, and several most
important minerals, an annual supply of 20,000 excellent
horses to the stud of the Persian king."
G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Persia, chapter 1.
Before the Persians established their sovereignty over the
country, "it seems certain that from one quarter or another
Armenia had been Arianized; the old Turanian character had
passed away from it; immigrants had flocked in and a new
people had been formed--the real Armenians of later times,
and indeed of the present day." Submitting to Alexander, on
the overthrow of the Persian monarchy, Armenia fell afterwards
under the yoke of the Seleucidæ, but gained independence about
190 B. C., or earlier. Under the influence of Parthia, a
branch of the Parthian royal family, the Arsacids, was
subsequently placed on the throne and a dynasty established
which reigned for nearly six hundred years. The fourth of
these kings, Tigranes, who occupied the throne in the earlier
part of the last century B. C., placed Armenia in the front
rank of Asiatic kingdoms and in powerful rivalry with Parthia.
Its subsequent history is one of many wars and invasions and
much buffeting between Romans, Parthians, Persians, and their
successors in the conflicts of the eastern world. The part of
Armenia west of the Euphrates was called by the Romans Armenia
Minor. For a short period after the revolt from the Seleucid
monarchy, it formed a distinct kingdom called Sophene.
G. Rawlinson, Sixth and Seventh Great Oriental
Monarchies.
ARMENIA: B. C. 69-68.
War with the Romans.
Great defeat at Tigranocerta
Submission to Rome.
See ROME: B. C. 78-68, and 69-63.
ARMENIA: A. D. 115-117.
Annexed to the Roman Empire by Trajan and restored to
independence by Hadrian.
See ROME: A. D. 96-138.
ARMENIA: A. D. 422 (?).
Persian Conquest.
Becomes the satrapy of Persarmenia.
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
ARMENIA: A. D. 1016-1073.
Conquest and devastation by the Seljuk Turks.
See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063, and 1063-1073.
ARMENIA: 12th-14th Centuries.
The Mediæval Christian Kingdom.
"The last decade of the 12th century saw the establishment of
two small Christian kingdoms in the Levant, which long
outlived all other relics of the Crusades except the military
orders; and which, with very little help from the West,
sustained a hazardous existence in complete contrast with
almost everything around them. The kingdoms of Cyprus and
Armenia have a history very closely intertwined, but their
origin and most of their circumstances were very different. By
Armenia as a kingdom is meant little more than the ancient
Cilicia, the land between Taurus and the sea, from the
frontier of the principality of Antioch, eastward, to
Kelenderis or Palæopolis, a little beyond Seleucia; this
territory, which was computed to contain 16 days' journey in
length, measured from four miles of Antioch, by two in
breadth, was separated from the Greater Armenia, which before
the period on which we are now employed had fallen under the
sway of the Seljuks, by the ridges of Taurus.
{135}
The population was composed largely of the sweepings of Asia
Minor, Christian tribes which had taken refuge in the
mountains. Their religion was partly Greek, partly Armenian.
... Their rulers were princes descended from the house of the
Bagratidæ, who had governed the Greater Armenia as kings from
the year 885 to the reign of Constantine of Monomachus, and
had then merged their hazardous independence in the mass of
the Greek Empire. After the seizure of Asia Minor by the
Seljuks, the few of the Bagratidæ who had retained possession
of the mountain fastnesses of Cilicia or the strongholds of
Mesopotamia, acted as independent lords, showing little
respect for Byzantium save where there was something to be
gained. ... Rupin of the Mountain was prince [of Cilicia] at
the time of the capture of Jerusalem by Saladin; he died in
1189, and his successor, Leo, or Livon, after having
successfully courted the favour of pope and emperor, was
recognised as king of Armenia by the emperor Henry VI., and
was crowned by Conrad of Wittelsbach, Archbishop of Mainz, in
1198." The dynasty ended with Leo IV., whose "whole reign was
a continued struggle against the Moslems," and who was
assassinated about 1342. "The five remaining kings of Armenia
sprang from a branch of the Cypriot house of Lusignan [see
CYPRUS: A. D. 1192-1489] and were little more than Latin
exiles in the midst of several strange populations all alike
hostile."
William Stubbs, Lectures on the Study of Mediæval and Modern
History, lecture 8.
ARMENIA: A. D. 1623-1635.
Subjugated by Persia and regained by the Turks,
See TURKS: A. D. 1623-1640.
----------ARMENIA: End----------
ARMENIAN CHURCH, The.
The church of the Armenians is "the oldest of all national
churches. They were converted by St. Gregory, called 'The
Illuminator,' who was a relative of Dertad or Tiridates, their
prince, and had been forced to leave the country at the same
time with him, and settled at Cæsareia in Cappadocia, where he
was initiated into the Christian faith. When they returned,
both prince and people embraced the Gospel through the
preaching of Gregory, A. D. 276, and thus presented the first
instance of an entire nation becoming Christian. ... By an
accident they were unrepresented at [the Council of] Chalcedon
[A. D. 451], and, owing to the poverty of their language in
words serviceable for the purposes of theology, they had at
that time but one word for Nature and Person, in consequence
of which they misunderstood the decision of that council [that
Christ possessed two natures, divine and human, in one Person]
with sufficient clearness. ... It was not until eighty-four
years had elapsed that they finally adopted Eutychianism [the
doctrine that the divinity is the sole nature in Christ], and
an anathema was pronounced on the Chalcedonian decrees (536)."
H. F. Tozer, The Church and the Eastern Empire, chapter 5.
"The religion of Armenia could not derive much glory from the
learning or the power of its inhabitants. The royalty expired
with the origin of their schism; and their Christian kings,
who arose and fell in the 13th century on the confines of
Cilicia, were the clients of the Latins and the vassals of the
Turkish sultan of Iconium, The helpless nation has seldom been
permitted to enjoy the tranquility of servitude. From the
earliest period to the present hour, Armenia has been the
theatre of perpetual war; the lands between Tauris and Erivan
were dispeopled by the cruel policy of the Sophis; and myriads
of Christian families were transplanted, to perish or to
propagate in the distant provinces of Persia. Under the rod of
oppression, the zeal of the Armenians is fervent and intrepid;
they have often preferred the crown of martyrdom to the white
turban of Mahomet; they devoutly hate the error and idolatry
of the Greeks."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 47.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ARMINIANISM.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.
ARMINIUS, The Deliverance of Germany by.
See GERMANY: B. C. 8--A. D. 11.
ARMORIAL BEARINGS, Origin of.
"As to armorial bearings, there is no doubt that emblems
somewhat similar have been immemorially used both in war and
peace. The shields of ancient warriors, and devices upon coins
or seals, bear no distant resemblance to modern blazonry. But
the general introduction of such bearings, as hereditary
distinctions, has been sometimes attributed to tournaments,
wherein the champions were distinguished by fanciful devices;
sometimes to the crusades, where a multitude of all nations
and languages stood in need of some visible token to denote
the banners of their respective chiefs. In fact, the peculiar
symbols of heraldry point to both these sources and have been
borrowed in part from each. Hereditary arms were perhaps
scarcely used by private families before the beginning of the
thirteenth century. From that time, however, they became very
general."
H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 2, part 2.
ARMORICA.
The peninsular projection of the coast of Gaul between the
mouths of the Seine and the Loire, embracing modern Brittany,
and a great part of Normandy, was known to the Romans as
Armorica. The most important of the Armorican tribes in
Cæsar's time was that of the Veneti. "In the fourth and fifth
centuries, the northern coast from the Loire to the frontier
of the Netherlands was called 'Tractus Aremoricus,' or
Aremorica, which in Celtic signifies 'maritime country.' The
commotions of the third century, which continued to increase
during the fourth and fifth, repeatedly drove the Romans from
that country. French antiquaries imagine that it was a
regularly constituted Gallic republic, of which Chlovis had
the protectorate, but this is wrong."
B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and
Geography, volume 2, page 318.
ALSO IN:
E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,
volume 2, page 235.
See, also, VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL, and IBERIANS, THE WESTERN.
ARMSTRONG, General John, and the Newburgh Addresses.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782-1783.
ARMSTRONG, General John: Secretary of War.
Plan of descent on Montreal.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).
ARMY, The Legal Creation of the British.
See MUTINY ACTS.
ARMY PURCHASE, Abolition of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1871.
ARNÆANS, The.
See GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.
{136}
ARNAULD, Jacqueline Marie, and the Monastery of Port Royal.
See PORT ROYAL and the JANSENISTS: A. D. 1602-1660.
ARNAUTS, The.
See ALBANIANS, MEDIÆVAL.
ARNAY-LE-DUC, Battle of (1570).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.
ARNOLD, Benedict, and the American Revolution.
See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776;
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY);
1777 (JULY-OCTOBER); 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER);
1780-1781; 1781 (JANUARY-MAY); 1781 (MAY-OCTOBER).
ARNOLD OF BRESCIA, The Republic of.
See ROME: A. D. 1145-1155.
ARNOLD VON WINKELRIED, at the Battle of Sempach.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.
ARNULF,
King of the East Franks (Germany), A. D. 888-899;
King of Italy and Emperor, A. D. 894-899.
AROGI, Battle of (1868).
See ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.
ARPAD, Dynasty of.
See HUNGARIANS: RAVAGES IN EUROPE;
and HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114; 1114-1301.
ARPAD, Siege of.
Conducted by the Assyrian Conqueror Tiglath-Pileser, beginning
B. C. 742 and lasting two years. The fall of the city brought
with it the submission of all northern Syria.
A. H. Sayce, Assyria, chapter 2.
ARQUES, Battles at (1589).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1589-1590.
ARRABIATI, The.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.
ARRAPACHITIS.
See JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY.
ARRAPAHOES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
ARRAS: Origin.
See BELGÆ.
ARRAS: A.. D. 1583.
Submission to Spain.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
ARRAS: A. D. 1654.
Unsuccessful Siege by the Spaniards under Condé.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.
----------ARRAS: End----------
ARRAS, Treaties of (1415 and 1435).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415, and 1431-1453.
ARRETIUM, Battle of (B. C. 285).
See ROME: B. C. 295-191.
ARROW HEADED WRITING.
See CUNEIFORM WRITING.
ARSACIDÆ, The.
The dynasty of Parthian kings were so called, from the founder
of the line, Arsaces, who led the revolt of Parthia from the
rule of the Syrian Seleucidæ and raised himself to the throne.
According to some ancient writers Arsaces was a Bactrian;
according to others a Scythian.
G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 3.
ARSEN.
In one of the earlier raids of the Seljukian Turks into
Armenia, in the eleventh century the city of Arsen was
destroyed. "It had long been the great city of Eastern Asia
Minor, the centre of Asiatic trade, the depot for merchandise
transmitted overland from Persia and India to the Eastern
Empire and Europe generally. It was full of warehouses
belonging to Armenians and Syrians and is said to have
contained 800 churches and 300,000 people. Having failed to
capture the city, Togrul's general succeeded in burning it.
The destruction of so much wealth struck a fatal blow at
Armenian commerce."
E. Pears, The Fall of Constantinople, chapter 2.
ARSENE, Lake.
An ancient name of the Lake of Van, which is also called
Thopitis by Strabo.
E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 22. section 1.
ARTABA, The.
See EPHAH.
ARTAXATA.
The ancient capital of Armenia, said to have been built under
the superintendence of Hannibal, while a refugee in Armenia.
At a later time it was called Neronia, in honor of the Roman
Emperor Nero.
ARTAXERXES LONGIMANUS, King of Persia, B. C. 465-425.
ARTAXERXES MNEMON, King of Persia, B. C. 405-359.
ARTAXERXES OCHUS, King of Persia, B. C. 359-338.
ARTAXERXES, or ARDSHIR, Founder of the Sassanian monarchy.
See PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.
ARTEMISIUM, Sea fights at.
See GREECE: B. C. 480.
ARTEMITA.
See DASTAGERD.
ARTEVELD, Jacques and Philip Van:
Their rise and fall in Ghent.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1335-1337, to 1382.
ARTHUR, King, and the Knights of the Round Table.
"On the difficult question, whether there was a historical
Arthur or not, ... a word or two must now be devoted; ... and
here one has to notice in the first place that Welsh
literature never calls Arthur a gwledig or prince but emperor,
and it may be inferred that his historical position, in case
he had such a position, was that of one filling, after the
departure of the Romans, the office which under them was that
of the Comes Britanniæ or Count of Britain. The officer so
called had a roving commission to defend the Province wherever
his presence might be called for. The other military captains
here were the Dux Britanniarum, who had charge of the forces
in the north and especially on the Wall, and the Comes
Littoris Saxonici [Count of the Saxon Shore], who was
entrusted with the defence of the south-eastern coast of the
island. The successors of both these captains seem to have
been called in Welsh gwledigs or princes. So Arthur's
suggested position as Comes Britanniæ would be in a sense
superior to theirs, which harmonizes with his being called
emperor and not gwledig. The Welsh have borrowed the Latin
title of imperator, 'emperor,' and made it into 'amherawdyr,'
later 'amherawdwr,' so it is not impossible, that when the
Roman imperator ceased to have anything more to say to this
country, the title was given to the highest officer in the
island, namely the Comes Britanniæ, and that in the words 'Yr
Amherawdyr Arthur,' 'the Emperor Arthur,' we have a remnant of
our insular history. If this view be correct, it might be
regarded as something more than an accident that Arthur's
position relatively to that of the other Brythonic princes of
his time is exactly given by Nennius, or whoever it was that
wrote the Historia Brittonum ascribed to him: there
Arthur is represented fighting in company with the kings of
the Brythons in defence of their common country, he being
their leader in war. If, as has sometimes been argued, the
uncle of Maglocunus or Maelgwn, whom the latter is accused by
Gilda of having slain and superseded, was no other than
Arthur, it would supply one reason why that writer called
Maelgwn 'insularis draco,' 'the dragon or war-captain of the
island,' and why the latter and his successors after him were
called by the Welsh not gwledigs but kings, though their great
ancestor Cuneda was only a gwledig.
{137}
On the other hand the way in which Gildas alludes to the uncle
of Maelgwn without even giving his name, would seem to suggest
that in his estimation at least he was no more illustrious
than his predecessors in the position which he held, whatever
that may have been. How then did Arthur become famous above
them, and how came he to be the subject of so much story and
romance? The answer, in short, which one has to give to this
hard question must be to the effect, that besides a historic
Arthur there was a Brythonic divinity named Arthur, after whom
the man may have been called, or with whose name his, in case
it was of a different origin, may have become identical in
sound owing to an accident of speech; for both explanations
are possible, as we shall attempt to show later. Leaving aside
for a while the man Arthur, and assuming the existence of a
god of that name, let us see what could be made of him.
Mythologically speaking he would probably have to be regarded
as a Culture Hero; for, a model king and the institutor of the
Knighthood of the Round Table, he is represented as the leader
of expeditions to the isles of Hades, and as one who stood in
somewhat the same kind of relation to Gwalchmei as Gwydion did
to ILeu. It is needless here to dwell on the character usually
given to Arthur as a ruler: he with his knights around him may
be compared to Conehobar, in the midst of the Champions of
Emain Macha, or Woden among the Anses at Valhalla, while
Arthur's Knights are called those of the Round Table, around
which they are described sitting; and it would be interesting
to understand the signification of the term Round Table. On
the whole it is the table, probably, and not its roundness
that is the fact to which to call attention, as it possibly
means that Arthur's court was the first early court where
those present sat at a table at all in Britain. No such thing
as a common table figures at Conchobar's court or any other
described in the old legends of Ireland, and the same applies,
we believe, to those of the old Norsemen. The attribution to
Arthur of the first use of a common table would fit in well
with the character of a Culture Hero which we have ventured to
ascribe to him, and it derives countenance from the pretended
history of the Round Table; for the Arthurian legend traces it
back to Arthur's father, Uthr Bendragon, in whom we have under
one of his many names the king of Hades, the realm whence all
culture was fabled to have been derived. In a wider sense the
Round Table possibly signified plenty or abundance, and might
be compared with the table of the Ethiopians, at which Zeus
and the other gods of Greek mythology used to feast from time
to time."
J. Rhys, Studies in the Arthurian Legend, chapter 1.
See, also CUMBRIA.
ARTHUR, Chester A.
Election to Vice-Presidency.
Succession to the Presidency.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1880 and 1881.
ARTI OF FLORENCE.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.
ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION (American).
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781, and 1783-1787.
ARTICLES OF HENRY, The.
See POLAND: A. D. 1573.
ARTOIS, The House of.
See BOURBON, THE HOUSE OF.
ARTOIS: A. D. 1529.
Pretensions of the King of France to Suzerainty resigned.
See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.
ARTYNI.
See DEMIURGI.
ARVADITES, The.
The Canaanite inhabitants of the island of Aradus, or Arvad,
and who also held territory on the main land.
F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History,
book 6, chapter 1.
ARVERNI, The.
See ÆDUI;
also, GAULS, and ALLOBROGES.
ARX, The.
See CAPITOLINE HILL;
also GENS, ROMAN.
ARXAMUS, Battle of.
One of the defeats sustained by the Romans in their wars with
the Persians. Battle fought A. D. 603.
G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 24.
ARYANS.--ARYAS.
"This family (which is sometimes called Japhetic, or
descendants of Japhet) includes the Hindus and Persians among
Asiatic nations, and almost all the peoples of Europe. It may
seem strange that we English should be related not only to the
Germans and Dutch and Scandinavians, but to the Russians,
French, Spanish, Romans and Greeks as well; stranger still
that we can claim kinship with such distant peoples as the
Persians and Hindus. ... What seems actually to have been the
case is this: In distant ages, somewhere about the rivers Oxus
and Jaxartes, and on the north of that mountainous range
called the Hindoo-Koosh, dwelt the ancestors of all the
nations we have enumerated, forming at this time a single and
united people, simple and primitive in their way of life, but
yet having enough of a common national life to preserve a
common language. They called themselves Aryas or Aryans, a
word which, in its very earliest sense, seems to have meant
those who move upwards, or straight; and hence, probably, came
to stand for the noble race as compared with other races on
whom, of course, they would look down. ... As their numbers
increased, the space wherein they dwelt became too small for
them who had out of one formed many different peoples. Then
began a series of migrations, in which the collection of
tribes who spoke one language and formed one people started
off to seek their fortune in new lands. ... First among them,
in all probability, started the Kelts or Celts, who,
travelling perhaps to the South of the Caspian and the North
of the Black Sea, found their way to Europe and spread far on
to the extreme West. ... Another of the great families who
left the Aryan home was the Pelasgic or the Græco-Italic.
These, journeying along first Southwards and then to the West,
passed through Asia Minor, on to the countries of Greece and
Italy, and in time separated into those two great peoples, the
Greeks (or Hellenes, as they came to call themselves), and the
Romans. ... Next we come to two other great families of
nations who seem to have taken the same route at first, and
perhaps began their travels together as the Greeks and Romans
did. These are the Teutons and the Slaves. ... The word Slave
comes from Slowan, which in old Slavonian meant to speak, and
was given by the Slavonians to themselves as the people who
could speak in opposition to other nations whom, as they were
not able to understand them, they were pleased to consider as
dumb. The Greek word barbaroi (whence our barbarians) arose in
obedience to a like prejudice, only from an imitation of
babbling such as is made by saying 'bar-bar-bar.'"
C. F. Keary, Dawn of History, chapter 4.
{138}
The above passage sets forth the older theory of an Aryan
family of nations as well as of languages in its unqualified
form. Its later modifications are indicated in the following:
"The discovery of Sanscrit and the further discovery to which
it led, that the languages now variously known as Aryan,
Aryanic, Indo-European, Indo-Germanic, Indo-Celtic and
Japhetic are closely akin to one another, spread a spell over
the world of thought which cannot be said to have yet wholly
passed away. It was hastily argued from the kinship of their
languages to the kinship of the nations that spoke them. ...
The question then arises as to the home of the 'holethnos,' or
parent tribe, before its dispersion and during the proethnic
period, at a time when as yet there was neither Greek nor
Hindoo, neither Celt nor Teuton, but only an undifferentiated
Aryan. Of course, the answer at first was--where could it have
been but in the East. And at length the glottologist found it
necessary to shift the cradle of the Aryan race to the
neighbourhood of the Oxus and the Jaxartes, so as to place it
somewhere between the Caspian Sea and the Himalayas. Then
Doctor Latham boldly raised his voice against the Asiatic
theory altogether, and stated that he regarded the attempt to
deduce the Aryans from Asia as resembling an attempt to derive
the reptiles of this country from those of Ireland. Afterwards
Benfey argued, from the presence in the vocabulary common to
the Aryan languages of words for bear and wolf, for birch and
beech, and the absence of certain others, such as those for
lion, tiger and palm, that the original home of the Aryans
must have been within the temperate zone in Europe. ... As
might be expected in the case of such a difficult question,
those who are inclined to believe in the European origin of
the Aryans are by no means agreed among themselves as to the
spot to be fixed upon. Latham placed it east, or south-east of
Lithuania, in Podolia, or Volhynia; Benfey had in view a
district above the Black Sea and not far from the Caspian;
Peschel fixed on the slopes of the Caucasus; Cuno on the great
plain of Central Europe; Fligier on the southern part of
Russia; Pösche on the tract between the Niemen and the
Dnieper; L. Geiger on central and western Germany; and Penka
on Scandinavia."
J. Rhys, Race Theories
(in New Princeton Review, January, 1888).
"Aryan, in scientific language, is utterly inapplicable to
race. It means language, and nothing but language; and, if we
speak of Aryan race at all, we should know that it means no
more than X + Aryan speech. ... I have declared again and
again that if I say Aryas, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor
hair nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan
language. The same applies to Hindus, Greeks, Romans, Germans,
Celts and Slaves. ... In that sense, and in that sense only,
do I say that even the blackest Hindus represent an earlier
stage of Aryan speech and thought than the fairest
Scandinavians. ... If an answer must be given as to the place
where our Aryan ancestors dwelt before their separation,
whether in large swarms of millions, or in a few scattered
tents and huts, I should still say, as I said forty years ago,
'Somewhere in Asia,' and no more."
F. Max Müller, Biog. of Words and Home of the Aryas,
chapter 6.
The theories which dispute the Asiatic origin of the Aryans
are strongly presented by Canon Taylor in The Origin of the
Aryans, by G. H. Rendall, in The Cradle of the
Aryans, and by Dr. O. Schrader in Prehistoric
Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples.
See, also, INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS,
and THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.
AS.--LIBRA.--DENARIUS.--SESTERTIUS.
"The term As [among the Romans] and the words which
denote its divisions, were not confined to weight alone, but
were applied to measures of length and capacity also, and in
general to any object which could be regarded as consisting of
twelve equal parts. Thus they were commonly used to denote
shares into which an inheritance was divided." As a unit of
weight the As, or Libra, "occupied the same position in
the Roman system as the pound does in our own. According to
the most accurate researches, the As was equal to about
11.8 oz. avoirdupois, or .7375 of an avoirdupois pound." It
"was divided into 12 equal parts called unciæ, and the unciæ
was divided into 24 equal parts called scrupula." "The
As, regarded as a coin [of copper] originally weighed,
as the name implies, one pound, and the smaller copper coins
those fractions of the pound denoted by their names. By
degrees; however, the weight of the As, regarded as a
coin, was greatly diminished. We are told that, about the
commencement of the first Punic war, it had fallen from 12
ounces to 2 ounces; in the early part of the second Punic war
(B. C. 217), it was reduced to one ounce; and not long
afterwards, by a Lex Papiria, it was fixed at half-an-ounce,
which remained the standard ever after." The silver coins of
Rome were the Denarius, equivalent (after 217 B. C.) to 16
Asses; the Quinarius and the Sestertius, which became,
respectively, one half and one fourth of the Denarius in
value. The Sestertius, at the close of the Republic, is.
estimated to have been equivalent in value to two pence
sterling of English money. The coinage was debased under the
Empire. The principal gold coin of the Empire was the Denarius
Aureus, which passed for 25 silver Denarii.
W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 13.
ASCALON, Battle of (A. D. 1099).
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.
ASCANIENS, The.
See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 928-1142.
ASCULUM, Battle of (B. C. 279).
See ROME: B. C. 282-275.
ASCULUM, Massacre at.
See ROME: B. C. 90-88.
ASHANTEE WAR, The (1874).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1880
ASHBURTON TREATY, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.
ASHDOD.
See PHILISTINES.
ASHRAF, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1725-1730.
ASHTI, Battle of (1818).
See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.
{139}
ASIA: The Name.
"There are grounds for believing Europe and Asia to have
originally signified 'the west' and 'the east' respectively.
Both are Semitic terms, and probably passed to the Greeks from
the Phœnicians. ... The Greeks first applied the title [Asia]
to that portion of the eastern continent which lay nearest to
them, and with which they became first acquainted--the coast
of Asia Minor opposite the Cyclades; whence they extended it
as their knowledge grew. Still it had always a special
application to the country about Ephesus."
G. Rawlinson, Notes to Herodotus, volume 3, page 33.
ASIA:
The Roman Province (so called).
"As originally constituted, it corresponded to the dominions
of the kings of Pergamus ... left by the will of Attalus III.
to the Roman people (B. C. 133). ... It included the whole of
Mysia and Lydia, with Æolis, Ionia and Caria, except a small
part which was subject to Rhodes, and the greater part, if not
the whole, of Phrygia. A portion of the last region, however,
was detached from it."
E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 20, section 1.
ASIA: Central.
Mongol Conquest.
See MONGOLS.
ASIA:
Turkish Conquest.
See TURKS.
ASIA:
Russian Conquests.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876, and 1869-1881.
ASIA MINOR:
"The name of Asia Minor, so familiar to the student of ancient
geography, was not in use either among Greek or Roman writers
until a very late period. Orosius, who wrote in the fifth
century after the Christian era, is the first extant writer
who employs the term in its modern sense."
E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography.,
chapter 7, section 2.
The name Anatolia, which is of Greek origin, synonymous with
"The Levant," signifying "The Sunrise," came into use among
the Byzantines, about the 10th century, and was adopted by
their successors, the Turks.
ASIA MINOR:
Earlier Kingdoms and People.
See
PHRYGIANS and MYSIANS.
LYDIANS.
CARIANS.
LYCIANS.
BITHYNIANS.
PONTUS (CAPPADOCIA).
PAPHLAGONIANS.
TROJA.
ASIA MINOR:
The Greek Colonies.
"The tumult which had been caused by the irruption of the
Thesprotians into Thessaly and the displacement of the
population of Greece [see GREECE: THE MIGRATION, &c.] did not
subside within the limits of the peninsula. From the north and
the south those inhabitants who were unable to maintain their
ground against the incursions of the Thessalians, Arnaeans, or
Dorians, and preferred exile to submission, sought new homes
in the islands of the Aegean and on the western coast of Asia
Minor. The migrations continued for several generations. When
at length they came to an end, and the Anatolian coast from
Mount Ida to the Triopian headland, with the adjacent islands,
was in the possession of the Greeks, three great divisions or
tribes were distinguished in the new settlements: Dorians,
Ionians, and Aeolians. In spite of the presence of some alien
elements, the Dorians and Ionians of Asia Minor were the same
tribes as the Dorians and Ionians of Greece. The Aeolians, on
the other hand, were a composite tribe, as their name implies.
... Of these three divisions the Aeolians lay farthest to the
north. The precise limits of their territory were differently
fixed by different authorities. ... The Aeolic cities fell
into two groups: a northern, of which Lesbos was the centre,
and a southern, composed of the cities in the immediate
neighbourhood of the Hermus, and founded from Cyme.--The
northern group included the islands of Tenedos and Lesbos. In
the latter there were originally six cities: Methymna,
Mytilene, Pyrrha, Eresus, Arisba, and Antissa, but Arisba was
subsequently conquered and enslaved by Mytilene. ... The
second great stream of migration proceeded from Athens [after
the death of Codrus--see ATHENS: FROM THE DORIAN MIGRATION TO
B. C. 683--according to Greek tradition, the younger sons of
Codrus leading these Ionian colonists across the Aegean, first
to the Carian city of Miletus--see MILETUS,--which they
captured, and then to the conquest of Ephesus and the island
of Samos]. ... The colonies spread until a dodecapolis was
established, similar to the union which the Ionians had
founded in their old settlements on the northern shore of
Peloponnesus. In some cities the Ionian population formed a
minority. ... The colonisation of Ionia was undoubtedly, in
the main, an achievement of emigrants from Attica, but it was
not accomplished by a single family, or in the space of one
life-time. ... The two most famous of the Ionian cities were
Miletus and Ephesus. The first was a Carian city previously
known as Anactoria. ... Ephesus was originally in the hands of
the Leleges and the Lydians, who were driven out by the
Ionians under Androclus. The ancient sanctuary of the tutelary
goddess of the place was transformed by the Greeks into a
temple of Artemis, who was here worshipped as the goddess of
birth and productivity in accordance with Oriental rather than
Hellenic ideas." The remaining Ionic cities and islands were
Myus (named from the mosquitoes which infested it, and which
finally drove the colony to abandon it), Priene, Erythrae,
Clazomenæ, Teos, Phocaea, Colophon, Lebedus, Samos and Chios.
"Chios was first inhabited by Cretans ... and subsequently by
Carians. ... Of the manner in which Chios became connected
with the Ionians the Chians could give no clear account. ...
The southern part of the Anatolian coast, and the
southern-most islands in the Aegean were colonised by the
Dorians, who wrested them from the Phoenician or Carian
occupants. Of the islands, Crete is the most important. ...
Crete was one of the oldest centres of civilisation in the
Aegean [see CRETE]. ... The Dorian colony in Rhodes, like that
in Crete, was ascribed to the band which left Argos under the
command of Althaemenes. ... Other islands colonised by the
Dorians were Thera, ... Melos, ... Carpathus, Calydnae,
Nisyrus, and Cos. ... From the islands, the Dorians spread to
the mainland. The peninsula of Cnidus was perhaps the first
settlement. ... Halicarnassus was founded from Troezen, and
the Ionian element must have been considerable. ... Of the
Dorian cities, six united in the common worship of Apollo on
the headland of Triopium. These were Lindus, Ialysus, and
Camirus in Rhodes, Cos, and, on the mainland, Halicarnassus
and Cnidus. . . . The territory which the Aeolians acquired is
described by Herodotus as more fertile than that occupied by
the Ionians, but of a less excellent climate. It was inhabited
by a number of tribes, among which the Troes or Teucri were
the chief. ... In Homer the inhabitants of the city of the
Troad are Dardani or Troes, and the name Teucri does not
occur. In historical times the Gergithes, who dwelt in the
town of the same name ... near Lampsacus, and also formed the
subject population of Miletus, were the only remnants of this
once famous nation.
{140}
But their former greatness was attested by the Homeric poems,
and the occurrence of the name Gergithians at various places
in the Troad [see TROJA]. To this tribe belonged the Troy of
the Grecian epic, the site of which, so far as it represents
any historical city, is fixed at Hissarlik. In the Iliad the
Trojan empire extends from the Aesepus to the Caicus; it was
divided--or, at least, later historians speak of it as
divided--into principalities which recognised Priam as their
chief. But the Homeric descriptions of the city and its
eminence are not to be taken as historically true. Whatever
the power and civilisation of the ancient stronghold exhumed
by Dr. Schliemann may have been, it was necessary for the epic
poet to represent Priam and his nation as a dangerous rival in
wealth and arms to the great kings of Mycenae and Sparta. ...
The traditional dates fix these colonies [of the Greeks in
Asia Minor] in the generations which followed the Trojan war.
... We may suppose that the colonisation of the Aegean and of
Asia Minor by the Greeks was coincident with the expulsion of
the Phoenicians. The greatest extension of the Phoenician
power in the Aegean seems to fall in the 15th century B. C.
From the 13th it was gradually on the decline, and the Greeks
were enabled to secure the trade for themselves. ... By 1100
B. C. Asia Minor may have been in the hands of the Greeks,
though the Phoenicians still maintained themselves in Rhodes
and Cyprus. But all attempts at chronology are illusory."
E. Abbott, History of Greece, chapter 4 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
E. Curtius, History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapters 13-15.
J. A. Cramer, Geography and History Description of Asia
Minor, section 6 (volume 1).
See, also, MILETUS, PHOCÆANS.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539.
Prosperity of the Greek Colonies.
Their Submission to Crœsus, King of Lydia, and their conquest
and annexation to the Persian Empire.
"The Grecian colonies on the coast of Asia early rose to
wealth by means of trade and manufactures. Though we have not
the means of tracing their commerce, we know that it was
considerable, with the mother country, with Italy, and at
length Spain, with Phœnicia and the interior of Asia, whence
the productions of India passed to Greece. The Milesians, who
had fine woolen manufactures, extended their commerce to the
Euxine, on all sides of which they founded factories, and
exchanged their manufactures and other goods with the
Scythians and the neighbouring peoples, for slaves, wool, raw
hides, bees-wax, flax, hemp, pitch, etc. There is even reason
to suppose that, by means of caravans, their traders bartered
their wares not far from the confines of China [see MILETUS].
... But while they were advancing in wealth and prosperity, a
powerful monarchy formed itself in Lydia, of which the capital
was Sardes, a city at the foot of Mount Tmolus." Gyges, the
first of the Mermnad dynasty of Lydian kings (see LYDIANS),
whose reign is supposed to have begun about B. C. 724, "turned
his arms against the Ionian cities on the coast. During a
century and a half the efforts of the Lydian monarchs to
reduce these states were unavailing. At length (Ol. 55) [B. C.
568] the celebrated Crœsus mounted the throne of Lydia, and he
made all Asia this side of the River Halys (Lycia and Cilicia
excepted) acknowledge his dominion. The Aeolian, Ionian and
Dorian cities of the coast all paid him tribute; but,
according to the usual rule of eastern conquerors, he meddled
not with their political institutions, and they might deem
themselves fortunate in being insured against war by the
payment of an annual sum of money. Crœsus, moreover,
cultivated the friendship of the European Greeks." But Crœsus
was overthrown, B. C. 554, by the conquering Cyrus and his
kingdom of Lydia was swallowed up in the great Persian empire
then taking form [see PERSIA: B. C. 549-521]. Cyrus, during
his war with Crœsus, had tried to entice the Ionians away from
the latter and win them to an alliance with himself. But they
incurred his resentment by refusing. "They and the Æolians now
sent ambassadors, praying to be received to submission on the
same terms as those on which they had obeyed the Lydian
monarch; but the Milesians alone found favour: the rest had to
prepare for war. They repaired the walls of their towns, and
sent to Sparta for aid. Aid, however, was refused; but Cyrus,
being called away by the war with Babylon, neglected them for
the present. Three years afterwards (Ol. 59, 2), Harpagus, who
had saved Cyrus in his infancy from his grandfather, Astyages,
came as governor of Lydia. He instantly prepared to reduce the
cities of the coast. Town after town submitted. The Teians
abandoned theirs, and retired to Abdera in Thrace; the
Phocæans, getting on shipboard, and vowing never to return,
sailed for Corsica, and being there harassed by the
Carthagenians and Tyrrhenians, they went to Rhegion in Italy,
and at length founded Massalia (Marseilles) on the coast of
Gaul. The Grecian colonies thus became a part of the Persian
empire."
T. Keightley, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
Herodotus, History, translated and edited by G. Rawlinson,
book 1, and appendix
M. Duncker, History of Antiquity,
book 8, chapter 6-7 (volume 6).
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 501-493.
The Ionian revolt and its suppression.
See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 479.
Athens assumes the protection of Ionia.
See ATHENS: B. C.479-478.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 477.
Formation of Confederacy of Delos.
See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 413.
Tribute again demanded from the Greeks by the Persian King.
Conspiracy against Athens.
See GREECE: B. C. 413.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 413-412.
Revolt of the Greek cities from Athens.
Intrigues of Alcibiades.
See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 412.
Re-submission to Persia.
See PERSIA: B. C. 486-405.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 401-400.
Expedition of Cyrus the Younger, and Retreat of the Ten
Thousand.
See PERSIA: B. C.401-400.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 399-387.
Spartan war with Persia in behalf of the Greek cities.
Their abandonment by the Peace of Antalcidas.
See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 334.
Conquest by Alexander the Great.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 301.
Mostly annexed to the Thracian Kingdom of Lysimachus.
See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 310-301.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 281-224.
Battle-ground of the warring monarchies of Syria and Egypt.
Changes of masters.
See SELEUCIDÆ.
{141}
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 191.
First Entrance of the Romans.
Their defeat of Antiochus the Great.
Their expansion of the kingdom of Pergamum and the Republic of
Rhodes.
See SELEUCIDÆ B. C. 224-187.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 120-65.
Mithridates and his kingdom.
Massacre of Italians.
Futile revolt from Rome.
Complete Roman Conquest.
See MITHRIDATIC WARS;
also ROME: B. C.78-68. and 69-63.
ASIA MINOR: A. D. 292.
Diocletian's seat of Empire established at Nicomedia.
See ROME: A. D. 284-305.
ASIA MINOR: A. D. 602-628.
Persian invasions.
Deliverance by Heraclius.
See ROME: A. D. 565-628.
ASIA MINOR: A. D. 1063-1092.
Conquest and ruin by the Seljuk Turks.
See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1063-1073; and 1073-1092.
ASIA MINOR: A. D. 1097-1149.
Wars of the Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099; and 1147-1149.
ASIA MINOR: A. D. 1204-1261.
The Empire of Nicæa and the Empire of Trebizond.
See GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA.
----------ASIA MINOR: End----------
ASIENTO, OR ASSIENTO, The.
See
SLAVERY: A. D. 1698-1776;
UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS OF; ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741;
and GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.
ASKELON.
See PHILISTINES.
ASKLEPIADS.
"Throughout all the historical ages [of Greece] the
descendants of Asklêpius [or Esculapius] were numerous and
widely diffused. The many families or gentes called
Asklêpiads, who devoted themselves to the study and practice
of medicine, and who principally dwelt near the temples of
Asklêpius, whither sick and suffering men came to obtain
relief--all recognized the god, not merely as the object of
their common worship, but also as their actual progenitor."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 9.
ASMONEANS, The.
See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.
ASOPIA.
See SICYON.
ASOV.
See AZOF.
ASPADAN.
The ancient name of which that of Ispahan is a corrupted form.
G. Rawlinson. Five Great Monarchies: Media, chapter 1.
ASPERN--ESSLINGEN (OR THE MARCHFELD), Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).
ASPIS, The.
See PHALANX.
ASPROMONTE, Defeat of Garibaldi at (1862).
See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.
ASSAM, English Acquisition of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
ASSANDUN, Battle of.
The sixth and last battle, A. D. 1016, between Edmund
Ironsides, the English King, and his Danish rival, Cnut, or
Canute, for the Crown of England. The English were terribly
defeated and the flower of their nobility perished on the
field. The result was a division of the kingdom; but Edmund
soon died, or was killed. Ashington, in Essex, was the
battle-ground.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.
ASSASSINATIONS, Notable.
Abbas, Pasha of Egypt.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.

Alexander II. of Russia.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1879-1881.
Beatoun, Cardinal.
See SCOTLAND: A, D. 1546.
Becket, Thomas.
See ENGLAND: A. D.1162-1170,
Buckingham.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1628.
Cæsar.
See ROME; B. C. 44.
Capo d'Istrea, Count, President of Greece.
See GREECE: A. D. 1830-1862.
Cavendish, Lord Frederick, and Burke, Mr.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1882.
Concini.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619.
Danilo, Prince of Montenegro (1860).
See MONTENEGRO.
Darnley.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.
Francis of Guise.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.
Garfield, President.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1881.
Gustavus III. of Sweden.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.
Henry of Guise.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.
Henry III. of France.
See FRANCE; A. D. 1584-1589.
Henry IV. of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1600.
Hipparchus.
See ATHENS: B. C, 560-510.
John, Duke of Burgundy.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1415-1419.
Kleber, General.
See FRANCE; A. D. 1800 (JANUARY-JUNE).
Kotzebue.
See GERMANY; A. D. 1817-1820.
Lincoln, President.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).
Marat.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY).
Mayo, Lord.
See INDIA; A. D. 1862-1876.
Murray, The Regent.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.
Omar, Caliph.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST, &c.: A. D. 661.
Paul, Czar of Russia.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1801.
Perceval, Spencer.
See ENGLAND; A. D. 1806-1812.
Peter III.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1761-1762.
Philip of Macedon.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
Prim, General (1870).
See SPAIN. A. D. 1866-1843.
Rizzio.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.
Rossi, Count.
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
Wallenstein (1634).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.
William the Silent.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.
Witt, John and Cornelius de.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1672-1674.
ASSASSINS, The.
"I must here speak with the brevity which my limits prescribe
of that wonderful brotherhood of the Assassins, which during
the 12th and 13th centuries spread such terror through all
Asia, Mussulman and Christian. Their deeds should be studied
in Von Hammer's history of their order, of which however
there is an excellent analysis in Taylor's History of
Mohammedanism. The word Assassin, it must be remembered,
in its ordinary signification, is derived from this order, and
not the reverse. The Assassins were not so called because they
were murderers, but murderers are called assassins because the
Assassins were murderers. The origin of the word Assassin has
been much disputed by oriental scholars; but its application
is sufficiently written upon the Asiatic history of the 12th
century. The Assassins were not, strictly speaking, a dynasty,
but rather an order, like the Templars; only the office of
Grand-Master, like the Caliphate, became hereditary. They were
originally a branch of the Egyptian Ishmaelites [see MAHOMETAN
CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171] and at first professed the
principles of that sect. But there can be no doubt that their
inner doctrine became at last a mere negation of all religion
and all morality. 'To believe nothing and to dare everything'
was the summary of their teaching. Their exoteric principle,
addressed to the non-initiated members of the order, was
simple blind obedience to the will of their superiors. If the
Assassin was ordered to take off a Caliph or a Sultan by the
dagger or the bowl, the deed was done; if he was ordered to
throw himself from the ramparts, the deed was done likewise.
... Their founder was Hassan Sabah, who, in 1090, shortly
before the death of Malek Shah, seized the castle of
Alamout--the Vulture's nest--in northern Persia, whence they
extended their possessions over a whole chain of mountain
fortresses in that country and in Syria. The Grand-Master was
the Sheikh-al-Jebal, the famous Old Man of the Mountain, at
whose name Europe and Asia shuddered."
E. A. Freeman, History and Conquests of the, Saracens,
lecture 4.
{142}
"In the Fatimide Khalif of Egypt, they [the Assassins, or
Ismailiens of Syria and Persia] beheld an incarnate deity. To
kill his enemies, in whatever way they best could, was an
action, the merit of which could not be disputed, and the
reward for which was certain." Hasan Sabah, the founder of the
Order, died at Alamout A. D. 1124. "From the day he entered
Alamut until that of his death--a period of thirty-five
years--he never emerged, but upon two occasions, from the
seclusion of his house. Pitiless and inscrutable as Destiny,
he watched the troubled world of Oriental politics, himself
invisible, and whenever he perceived a formidable foe, caused
a dagger to be driven into his heart." It was not until more
than a century after the death of its founder that the fearful
organization of the Assassins was extinguished (A. D. 1257) by
the same flood of Mongol invasion which swept Bagdad and the
Caliphate out of existence.
R. D. Osborn, Islam under the Khalifs of Bagdad,
part 3, chapter 3.
W. C. Taylor, History of Mohammedanism and its Sects,
chapter 9.
The Assassins were rooted out from all their strongholds in
Kuhistan and the neighboring region, and were practically
exterminated, in 1257, by the Mongols under Khulagu, or
Houlagou, brother of Mongu Khan, the great sovereign of the
Mongol Empire, then reigning. Alamut, the Vulture's Nest, was
demolished.
H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, part 1, page 193;
and part 3, pages 91-108.
See BAGDAD; A. D. 1258.
ASSAYE, Battle of (1803).
See INDIA; A. D. 1798-1803.
ASSEMBLY OF THE NOTABLES IN FRANCE (1787).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788.
ASSENISIPIA, The proposed State of.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1784.
ASSIDEANS, The.
See CHASIDM, THE.
ASSIENTO, The.
See ASIENTO.
ASSIGNATS.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1791; 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL);
1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
ASSINARUS, Athenian defeat and surrender at the.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.
ASSINIBOIA.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.
ASSINIBOINS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
ASSIZE, The Bloody.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (SEPTEMBER).
ASSIZE OF BREAD AND ALE.
The Assize of Bread and Ale was an English ordinance or
enactment, dating back to the time of Henry III. in the 13th
century, which fixed the price of those commodities by a scale
regulated according to the market prices of wheat, barley and
oats. "The Assize of bread was re-enacted so lately as the
beginning of the last century and was only abolished in London
and its neighbourhood about thirty years ago"--that is, early
in the present century.
G. L. Craik, History of British Commerce,
volume 1, page 137.
ASSIZE OF CLARENDON, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.
ASSIZE OF JERUSALEM, The.
"No sooner had Godfrey of Bouillon [elected King of Jerusalem,
after the taking of the Holy City by the Crusaders, A. D.
1099] accepted the office of supreme magistrate than he
solicited the public and private advice of the Latin pilgrims
who were the best skilled in the statutes and customs of
Europe. From these materials, with the counsel and approbation
of the Patriarch and barons, of the clergy and laity, Godfrey
composed the Assise of Jerusalem, a precious monument of
feudal jurisprudence. The new code, attested by the seals of
the King, the Patriarch, and the Viscount of Jerusalem, was
deposited in the holy sepulchre, enriched with the
improvements of succeeding times, and respectfully consulted
as often as any doubtful question arose in the tribunals of
Palestine. With the kingdom and city all was lost; the
fragments of the written law were preserved by jealous
tradition and variable practice till the middle of the
thirteenth century. The code was restored by the pen of John
d'Ibelin, Count of Jaffa, one of the principal feudatories;
and the final revision was accomplished in the year thirteen
hundred and sixty-nine, for the use of the Latin kingdom of
Cyprus."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 58.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ASSIZES.
"The formal edicts known under the name of Assizes, the
Assizes of Clarendon and Northampton, the Assize of Arms, the
Assize of the Forest, and the Assizes of Measures, are the
only relics of the legislative work of the period [reign of
Henry II. in England]. These edicts are chiefly composed of
new regulations for the enforcement of royal justice, ... In
this respect they strongly resemble the capitularies of the
Frank Kings, or, to go farther back, the edicts of the Roman
prætors. ... The term Assize, which comes into use in this
meaning about the middle of the twelfth century, both on the
continent and in England, appears to be the proper Norman name
for such edicts. ... In the 'Assize of Jerusalem' it simply
means a law; and the same in Henry's legislation. Secondarily,
it means a form of trial established by the particular law, as
the Great Assize, the Assize of Mort d' Ancester; and thirdly
the court held to hold such trials, in which sense it is
commonly used at the present day."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 13.
ASSUR.
See ASSYRIA.
ASSYRIA.
For matter relating to Assyrian history, the reader is
referred to the caption SEMITES, under which it will be given.
The subject is deferred to that part of this work which will
go later into print, for the reason that every month is adding
to the knowledge of the students of ancient oriental history
and clearing away disputed questions. It is quite possible
that the time between the publication of our first volume and
our fourth or fifth may make important additions to the scanty
literature of the subject in English. Modern excavation on the
sites of the ancient cities in the East, bringing to light
large library collections of inscribed clay tablets,--sacred
and historical writings, official records, business contracts
and many varieties of inscriptions,--have almost
revolutionized the study of ancient history and the views of
antiquity derived from it.
{143}
"M. Botta, who was appointed French consul at Mosul in 1842,
was the first to commence excavations on the sites of the
buried cities of Assyria, and to him is due the honour of the
first discovery of her long lost palaces. M. Botta commenced
his labours at Kouyunjik, the large mound opposite Mosul, but
he found here very little to compensate for his labours. New
at the time to excavations, he does not appear to have worked
in the best manner; M. Botta at Kouyunjik contented himself
with sinking pits in the mound, and on these proving
unproductive abandoning them. While M. Botta was excavating at
Kouyunjik, his attention was called to the mounds of Khorsabad
by a native of the village on that site; and he sent a party
of workmen to the spot to commence excavation. In a few days
his perseverance was rewarded by the discovery of some
sculptures, after which, abandoning the work at Kouyunjik, he
transferred his establishment to Khorsabad and thoroughly
explored that site. ... The palace which M. Botta had
discovered ... is one of the most perfect Assyrian buildings
yet explored, and forms an excellent example of Assyrian
architecture. Beside the palace on the mound of Khorsabad, M.
Botta also opened the remains of a temple, and a grand porch
decorated by six winged bulls. ... The operations of M. Botta
were brought to a close in 1845, and a splendid collection of
sculptures and other antiquities, the fruits of his labours,
arrived in Paris in 1846 and was deposited in the Louvre.
Afterwards the French Government appointed M. Place consul at
Mosul, and he continued some of the excavations of his
predecessor. ... Mr. Layard, whose attention was early turned
in this direction, visited the country in 1840, and afterwards
took a great interest in the excavations of M. Botta. At
length, in 1845, Layard was enabled through the assistance of
Sir Stratford Canning to commence excavations in Assyria
himself. On the 8th of November he started from Mosul, and
descended the Tigris to Nimroud. ... Mr. Layard has described
in his works with great minuteness his successive excavations,
and the remarkable and interesting discoveries he made. ...
After making these discoveries in Assyria, Mr. Layard visited
Babylonia, and opened trenches in several of the mounds there.
On the return of Mr. Layard to England, excavations were
continued in the Euphrates valley under the superintendence of
Colonel (now Sir Henry) Rawlinson. Under his directions, Mr.
Hormuzd Rassam, Mr. Loftus, and Mr. Taylor excavated various
sites and made numerous discoveries, the British Museum
receiving the best of the monuments. The materials collected
in the national museums of France and England, and the
numerous inscriptions published, attracted the attention of
the learned, and very soon considerable light was thrown on
the history, language, manners, and customs of ancient Assyria
and Babylonia."
G. Smith, Assyrian Discoveries, chapter 1.
"One of the most important results of Sir A. H. Layard's
explorations at Nineveh was the discovery of the ruined
library of the ancient city, now buried under the mounds of
Kouyunjik. The broken clay tablets belonging to this library
not only furnished the student with an immense mass of
literary matter, but also with direct aids towards a knowledge
of the Assyrian syllabary and language. Among the literature
represented in the library of Kouyunjik were lists of
characters, with their various phonetic and ideographic
meanings, tables of synonymes, and catalogues of the names of
plants and animals. This, however, was not all. The inventors
of the cuneiform system of writing had been a people who
preceded the Semites in the occupation of Babylonia, and who
spoke an agglutinative language utterly different from that of
their Semitic successors. These Accadians, as they are usually
termed, left behind them a considerable amount of literature,
which was highly prized by the Semitic Babylonians and
Assyrians. A large portion of the Ninevite tablets,
accordingly, consists of interlinear or parallel translations
from Accadian into Assyrian, as well as of reading books,
dictionaries, and grammars, in which the Accadian original is
placed by the side of its Assyrian equivalent. ... The
bilingual texts have not only enabled scholars to recover the
long-forgotten Accadian language; they have also been of the
greatest possible assistance to them in their reconstruction
of the Assyrian dictionary itself. The three expeditions
conducted by Mr. George Smith [1873-1876], as well as the
later ones of Mr. Hormuzd Rassam, have added largely to the
stock of tablets from Kouyunjik originally acquired for the
British Museum by Sir A. H. Layard, and have also brought to
light a few other tablets from the libraries of Babylonia."
A. H. Sayce, Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies:
The Second Monarchy, chapter 9.
Mr. Duncker, History of Antiquity, books 3-4.
George Smith, Ancient History from the Monuments:
Assyria.
See, also, BABYLONIA and SEMITES.
ASSYRIA, Eponym Canon of.
"Just as there were archons at Athens and consuls at Rome who
were elected annually, so among the Assyrians there was a
custom of electing one man to be over the year, whom they
called 'limu,' or 'eponym.' ... Babylonian and Assyrian
documents were more generally dated by the names of these
eponyms than by that of the reigning King. ... In 1862 Sir
Henry Rawlinson discovered the fragment of the eponym canon of
Assyria. It was one of the grandest and most important
discoveries ever made, for it has decided definitely a great
many points which otherwise could never have been cleared up.
Fragments of seven copies of this canon were found, and from
these the chronology of Assyria has been definitely settled
from B. C. 1330 to about B. C. 620."
E. A. W. Budge, Babylonian Life and History, chapter 3.
ASTOLF, King of the Lombards, A. D. 749-759.
ASTRAKHAN:
The Khanate.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.
ASTRAKHAN: A. D. 1569.
Russian repulse of the Turks.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1569-1571.
ASTURIANS, The.
See CANTABRIANS.
ASTURIAS:
Resistance to the Moorish Conquest.
See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737.
ASTY, OR ASTU, The.
The ancient city of Athens proper, as distinguished from its
connected harbors, was called the Asty, or Astu.
J. A. St. John, The Hellenes, book 1, chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
W. M. Leake, Topography of Athens, section 10.
See also, ATHENS: AREA, &c.
A Logical Outline of Athenian and Greek History
[Red ] Physical or material.
[Blue ] Ethnological.
[Green] Social and political.
[Brown] Intellectual, moral and religious.
[Black] Foreign.
In which the dominant conditions and influences
are distinguished by colors.
The Land
The most capable people of early times, placed in the most
favorable environment that the world in those times could offer
them, worked out a civilization--perfect in all refinements
except the moral--which has been the admiration and the marvel of
later days.
Under modern conditions, the country of the Greeks gives no
marked advantage to its inhabitants; but in the age of fiercer
struggles, when war among men was tribal, universal, and hand to
hand, and when the larger possibilities of pacific intercourse
were bounded by one small sea, its intersecting mountains, its
separated valleys and plains, its penetrating gulfs and bays, its
clustered peninsulas in peninsulas, were helpful beyond measure
to their social and political advance. In no other region of
Europe could the independent city-states of ancient Hellas have
grown up in shelter so safe, under skies so kindly, amid
influences from the outer world so urgent and so strong.
It is reasonable to say that these happy conditions had
much to do with the shaping of the character and career of the
Greek people as a whole. But they differed very greatly from one
another in their various political groups, and by differences
that cannot be traced to varied surroundings of earth, or air, or
sea, or human neighborhood. When every circumstance which
distinguishes Athens in situation from Sparta, or from Corinth,
or from Argos, has been weighed and reckoned, the Athenian
is still parted from the Spartan, from the Corinthian and from
the Argive, by a distinction which we name and do not explain by
calling it family or race.
Ionians and Dorians.
At some time in the unknown past, there had been a parting of
kindred among the ancestors of the Greeks, and the current of
descent ran, for many centuries, perhaps, in two clearly divided
streams, which acquired (in what manner, who can guess?) very
different characteristics and qualities in their course. Then, in
time, the great migrations, which are at the beginning of the
traditions of the Greeks, brought these two branches of the race
(the Doric and the Ionic, as they are named), into contact
again, and associated them in a common career. In the inherited
nature of the Ionian Greeks there was something which made them
more sensitive to the finer delights of the mind, and prepared
them to be more easily moved by every impulse toward philosophy
and art, from the civilizations that were older than their own.
In the Dorians there was less of this. They shared in equal
measure, perhaps, the keen, clear Greek intellect, but they
narrowed it to commoner aims.
Achaians.--Mycenæ.
It is possible that all which the Athenians came to be, their
elder kindred, the Achaians, might have been. Their peninsula of
Argolis is the peninsula of Attica in duplicate,--washed by the
same waves, and reaching out to the same eastern world. They were
first to touch hands with Phœnicia and with Egypt, and first to
borrow arts and ideas from Memphis and Tyre. But their
civilization, which they had raised to the height which Homer
portrays, was overwhelmed by the Doric conquest; and the fact
that these invaders, succeeding to the same vantage ground,
remained as poor in culture as the Argives and their final
masters, the Spartans, appear to have been, gives evidence of the
strange difference that was rooted in the constitution of the two
branches of the race.
Sparta.-Athens.
By force of this difference, the Spartans formed their state upon
the grim lines of a military camp, and took leadership among the
Greeks in practical affairs; the Athenians adorned a free city
with great and beautiful works, made it hospitable to all genius
and all the knowledge of the time, and created a capital for the
civilization of the ancient world.
In all the Greek communities there was a primitive stage in which
kings ruled over therm in a patriarchal way. In most of them the
kingship surrendered to an oligarchy,--the oligarchy in time, was
overthrown by some bold adventurer, who led a rising of the
people and snatched power in the turmoil to make himself a
"tyrant,"--and the tyrant in his turn fell after no long reign.
In Athens that course of revolution was run; but it did not end
as with the rest. The Athenian tyranny gave way to the purest
democracy that has ever had trial in the world.
Æthel democracy.
That this Athenian democracy was wise in itself may be open to
doubt; but it produced wise men, and, for the century of its
great career, it was wonderfully led. How far that came to it
from superiority of race, and how far as the fruitage of free
institutions, no man can say; but the succession of statesmen who
raised Athens to her pitch of greatness, without shattering the
government of the people by the people, has no parallel in the
annals of so small a state.
Sparta, not Athens, was the military head of Greece; but when a
great emergency came upon the whole Greek world, it was the
larger intelligence and higher spirit of the Attic state which
inspired and guided the defence of the land and drove the
Persians back.
B.C. 498-479. The Persian War.
B.C. 477. Confederacy of Delos.
B.C. 445-429. Age of Pericles.
Making prompt use of the ascendancy she had won in the Persian
War, Athens rose rapidly in power and wealth. Under the guise of
a federation of the Ionian cities of the islands and of Asia
Minor, she created an empire subject to her rule. She commanded
the sea with superior fleets, and became first in commerce, as
she was first in knowledge, in politics and in arts. Her coffers
overran with the riches poured into them by her tribute-gatherers
and her men of trade, and she employed them with a noble
prodigality upon her temples and the buildings of the state. Her
abounding genius yielded fruits, in learning, letters, and art,
which surpass the whole experience of the world, before and
since, when measured against the smallness of the numbers from
which they came.
B. C. 431-404. Peloponnesian War.
But the power attained by the Athenian democracy was arrogantly
and harshly used; its sovereignty was exercised without
generosity or restraint. It provoked the hatred of its subjects,
and the bitter jealousy of rival states. Hence war in due time
was inevitable, and Athens, alone in the war, was thrown down
from her high estate. The last of the great leaders of her golden
age died when her need of him was greatest, and her citizens were
given over to demagogues who beguiled them to the ruin of the
republic.
B.C. 404-379--Sparta
B.C. 379-362--Thebes
Sparta regained the supremacy in Greece, and her rude domination,
imposed upon all, was harder to bear than the superiority of
Athens had been. Under the lead of Epaminondas of Thebes--the
most high-souled statesman who ever swayed the Hellenic race--the
Spartan yoke was broken.
B.C. 338--Macedonian supremacy.
But, in breaking it, all unity in Hellas was destroyed, and all
hope of resistance to any common foe. The foe who first appeared
was the half-Greek Macedonian, King Philip, who subdued the whole
peninsula with ease, and found none to defend it so heroically as
the orator Demosthenes.
B. C. 384-328.
Alexander's conquests.
Hellenization of the East.
But the subjugated Greeks were not yet at the end of their
career. With Philip's great son they went forth to a new and
higher destiny than the building of petty states. Unwittingly he
made conquest of an empire for them, and not for himself. They
Hellenized it from the Euxine to the Nile. In Egypt, in Syria,
and in Asia Minor, they entered and took possession of every
field of activity, an put their impress on every movement of
thought. Their philosophy and their literature fed all the
intellectual hunger of the age; their energy was its civilizing
force.
B. C. 197-146.--Roman conquest.
Then the Romans came, to conquer and be conquered by the spirit
of Athenian Greece, and to do for Europe, in the West, what the
Macedonians had done in the East. They effaced Greece from
history, in the political sense; but they kneeled to her
teaching, and became the servants of her civilization, to carry
it wherever the Roman eagles went.
Christianity.
A little later, when that civilization was changed by the
transforming spirit of the Gospel of Christ, it did not cease to
be essentially Greek; for Hellenism and Hebraism were fused in
the theology of the rising Christian Church, and Greek thought
ruled mankind again in an altered phase.
A. D. 476-1458.--The Eastern Empire.
At last, when Roman imperialism was driven from the West, Greece
drew it to herself, and reigned in the great name of Rome, and
fought gloriously with barbarians and with infidels for a
thousand added years, defending the Christian world till it grew
strong and stood in peril no more.
{144}
ASTYNOMI.
Certain police officials in ancient Athens, ten in number.
"They were charged with all that belongs to street
supervision, e. g., the cleansing of the streets, for which
purpose the coprologi, or street-sweepers, were under their
orders; the securing of morality and decent behaviour in the
streets."
G. F. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3.
ASUNCION: A. D. 1537.
The founding of the city.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.
ATABEGS, ATTABEGS, OR ATTABECKS.
"From the decline of the dynasty of Seljook to the conquest of
Persia by Hulakoo Khan, the son of Chenghis, a period of more
than a century, that country was distracted by the contests of
petty princes, or governors, called Attabegs; who, taking
advantage of the weakness of the last Seljookian monarchs, and
of the distractions which followed their final extinction,
established their authority over some of the finest provinces
of the Empire. Many of these petty dynasties acquired such a
local fame as, to this day, gives an importance to their
memory with the inhabitants of the countries over which they
ruled. ... The word Attabeg is Turkish: it is a compound word
of 'atta,' master, or tutor, and 'beg,' lord; and signifies a
governor, or tutor, of a lord or prince."
Sir J. Malcolm, History of Persia, volume 1; chapter 9.
"It is true that the Atabeks appear but a short space as
actors on the stage of Eastern history; but these 'tutors of
princes' occupy a position neither insignificant nor
unimportant in the course of events which occurred in Syria
and Persia at the time they flourished."-
W. H. Morley, Preface to Mirkhond's History of the
Atabeks.
See, also, SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.
ATAHUALPA, The Inca.
See PERU: A. D. 1581-1533.
ATELIERS NATIONAUX OF 1848, AT PARIS.
See FRANCE; A. D. 1848 (FEBRUARY-MAY),
and (APRIL-DECEMBER).
ATHABASCA, The District of.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.
ATHABASCANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHABASCAN FAMILY.
ATHALAYAS.
See SARDINIA, THE ISLAND: NAME AND EARLY HISTORY.
ATHEL.--ATHELING.--ATHELBONDE,
See ADEL.
ATHENRY, Battle of.
The most desperate battle fought by the Irish in resisting the
English conquest of Ireland. They were terribly slaughtered
and the chivalry of Connaught was crushed. The battle occurred
Aug. 10, A. D. 1316.
M. Haverty, History of Ireland, p, 282.
----------ATHENRY: End----------
ATHENS:
ATHENS:
The Preëminence of Athens.
"When we speak of Greece we think first of Athens. ... To
citizens and to strangers by means of epic recitations and
dramatic spectacles, she presented an idealised image of life
itself. She was the home of new ideas, the mother-city from
which poetry, eloquence, and philosophy spread to distant
lands. While the chief dialects of Greece survive, each not as
a mere dialect but as the language of literature,--a thing
unknown in the history of any other people,--the Attic idiom,
in which the characteristic elements of other dialects met and
were blended, has become to us, as it did to the ancients, the
very type of Hellenic speech. Athens was not only the 'capital
of Greece,' the 'school of Greece;' it deserves the name
applied to it in an epitaph on Euripides: 'his country is
Athens, Greece of Greece.' The rays of the Greek genius here
found a centre and a focus."
S. H. Butcher, Some Aspects of the Greek Genius, pages 38-39.
"Our interest in ancient history, it may be said, lies not in
details but in large masses. It matters little how early the
Arcadians acquired a political unity or what Nabis did to
Mycenæ; that which interests us is the constitution of Athens,
the repulse of Persia, the brief bloom of Thebes. Life is not
so long that we can spend our days over the unimportant fates
of uninteresting tribes and towns."
ATHENS:
Area and Population.
"The entire circuit of the Asty [the lower city, or Athens
proper], Long Walls and maritime city, taken as one inclosure,
is equal to about 17 English miles, or 148 stades. This is
very different from the 200 stades which Dion Chrysostom
states to have been the circumference of the same walls, an
estimate exceeding by more than 20 stades even the sum of the
peripheries of the Asty and Peimic towns, according to the
numbers of Thucydides. ... Rome was circular, Syracuse
triangular, and Athens consisted of two circular cities,
joined by a street of four miles in length,--a figure, the
superficies of which was not more than the fourth part of that
of a city of an equal circumference, in a circular form.
Hence, when to Rome within the walls were added suburbs of
equal extent, its population was greater than that of all
Attica. That of Athens, although the most populous city in
Greece, was probably never greater than 200,000."
W. M. Leake, Topography of Athens, section 10.
Ionian Origin.
See DORIANS AND IONIANS.
ATHENS:
The Beginning of the city-state.
How Attica was absorbed in its capital.
"In the days of Cecrops and the first kings [see ATTICA] down
to the reign of Theseus, Attica was divided into communes,
having their own town-halls and magistrates. Except in case of
alarm the whole people did not assemble in council under the
king, but administered their own affairs, and advised together
in their several townships. Some of them at times even went to
war with him, as the Eleusinians under Eumolpus with
Erectheus. But when Theseus came to the throne, he, being a
powerful as well as a wise ruler, among other improvements in
the administration of the country, dissolved the councils and
separate governments, and united all the inhabitants of Attica
in the present city, establishing one council and town-hall.
They continued to live on their own lands, but he compelled
them to resort to Athens as their metropolis, and henceforward
they were all inscribed in the roll of her citizens. A great
city thus arose which was handed down by Theseus to his
descendants, and from his day to this the Athenians have
regularly celebrated the national festival of the Synoecia, or
'union of the communes' in honour of the goddess Athenè.
Before his time, what is now the Acropolis and the ground
lying under it to the south was the city. Many reasons may be
urged in proof of this statement."
Thucydides, History (Jowett's translation), book 2,
section 15.
ALSO IN:
M. Duncker, History of Greece, book 3, chapter 7 (volume 2).
{145}

PLAN OF ATHENS.
From "Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens,"
by Jane E. Harrison and Margaret de G. Verrall.
[Image: Map]
HARBORS OF ATHENS.
{146}
ATHENS:
From the Dorian Migration to B. C. 683.
End of kingship and institution of the Archons.
At the epoch of the Boeotian and Dorian migrations (see
GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS), Attica was flooded by fugitives, both
from the north and from the Peloponnesus. "But the bulk of the
refugees passed on to Asia, and built up the cities of Ionia.
... When the swarms of emigrants cleared off, and Athens is
again discernable, the crown has passed from the old royal
house of the Cecropidæ to a family of exiles from
Peloponnesus. ... A generation later the Dorian invasion,
which had overwhelmed Corinth and torn away Megara from the
Attic dominion, swept up to the very gates of Athens. An
oracle declared that the city would never fall if its ruler
perished by the hand of the invaders; therefore King Codrus
disguised himself as a peasant, set out for the Dorian camp,
struck down the first man he met, and was himself slain by the
second. The invasion failed, and the Athenians, to perpetuate
the memory of their monarch's patriotism, would not allow the
title of 'king' to be borne by the descendants who succeeded
him on the throne, but changed the name to 'archon,' or
'ruler.' ... These legends evidently cover some obscure
changes in the internal history of Attica."
C. W. C. Oman, History of Greece, chapter 11.
"After the death of Codrus the nobles, taking advantage,
perhaps, of the opportunity afforded by the dispute between
his sons, are said to have abolished the title of king, and to
have substituted for it that of Archon. This change, however,
seems to have been important, rather as it indicated the new,
precarious tenure by which the royal power was held, than as
it immediately affected the nature of the office. It was,
indeed, still held for life; and Medon, the son of Codrus,
transmitted it to his posterity. ... After twelve reigns,
ending with that of Alcmæon [B. C. 752], the duration of the
office was limited to ten years; and through the guilt or
calamity of Hippomenes, the fourth decennial archon, the house
of Medon was deprived of its privilege, and the supreme
magistracy was thrown open to the whole body of nobles. This
change was speedily followed by one much more important. ...
The duration of the archonship was again reduced to a single
year [B. C. 683]; and, at the same time, its branches were
severed and distributed among nine new magistrates. Among
these, the first in rank retained the distinguishing title of
the Archon, and the year was marked by his name. He
represented the majesty of the state, and exercised a peculiar
jurisdiction--that which had belonged to the king as the
common parent of his people, the protector of families, the
guardian of orphans and heiresses, and of the general rights
of inheritance. For the second archon the title of king
[basileus], if it had been laid aside, was revived, as the
functions assigned to him were those most associated with
ancient recollections. He represented the king as the
high-priest of his people; he regulated the celebration of the
mysteries and the most solemn festivals; decided all causes
which affected the interests of religion. ... The third archon
bore the title of Polemarch, and filled the place of the king
as the leader of his people in war, and the guardian who
watched over its security in time of peace. ... The remaining
six archons received the common title of thesmothetes, which
literally signifies legislators, and was probably applied to
them as the judges who determined the great variety of causes
which did not fall under the cognizance of their colleagues;
because, in the absence of a written code, those who declare
and interpret the laws may be properly said to make them."
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 11.
"We are in no condition to determine the civil classification
and political constitution of Attica, even at the period of
the Archonship of Kreon, 683 B. C., when authentic Athenian
chronology first commences, much less can we pretend to any
knowledge of the anterior centuries. ... All the information
which we possess respecting that old polity is derived from
authors who lived after all or most of these great changes [by
Solon, and later]--and who, finding no records, nor anything
better than current legends, explained the foretime as well as
they could by guesses more or less ingenious, generally
attached to the dominant legendary names."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 10.
ALSO IN: G. F. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece:
The State, part 3, chapter 3.
ATHENS: B. C. 624.
Under the Draconian Legislation.
"Drako was the first thesmothet, who was called upon to set
down his thesmoi [ordinances and decisions] in writing, and
thus to invest them essentially with a character of more or
less generality. In the later and better-known times of
Athenian law, we find these archons deprived in great measure
of their powers of judging and deciding, and restricted to the
task of first hearing of parties and collecting the evidence,
next, of introducing the matter for trial into the appropriate
dikastery, over which they presided. Originally, there was no
separation of powers; the archons both judged and
administered.... All of these functionaries belonged to the
Eupatrids, and all of them doubtless acted more or less in the
narrow interest of their order; moreover, there was ample room
for favouritism in the way of connivance as well as antipathy
on the part of the archons. That such was decidedly the case,
and that discontent began to be serious, we may infer from the
duty imposed on the thesmothet Drako, B. C. 624, to put in
writing the thesmoi or ordinances, so that they might be
'shown publicly' and known beforehand. He did not meddle with
the political constitution, and in his ordinances Aristotle
finds little worthy of remark except the extreme severity of
the punishments awarded: petty thefts, or even proved idleness
of life, being visited with death or disfranchisement. But we
are not to construe this remark as demonstrating any special
inhumanity in the character of Drako, who was not invested
with the large power which Solon afterwards enjoyed, and
cannot be imagined to have imposed upon the community severe
laws of his own invention. ... The general spirit of penal
legislation had become so much milder, during the two
centuries which followed, that these old ordinances appeared
to Aristotle intolerably rigorous."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 10 (volume 3).
{147}
ATHENS: B. C. 612-595.
Conspiracy of Cylon.
Banishment of the Alcmæonids.
The first attempt at Athens to overturn the oligarchical
government and establish a personal tyranny was made, B. C.
612, by Cylon (Kylon), a patrician, son-in-law of the tyrant
of Megara, who was encouraged and helped in his undertaking by
the latter. The conspiracy failed miserably. The partisans of
Cylon, blockaded in the acropolis, were forced to surrender;
but they placed themselves under the protection of the goddess
Minerva and were promised their lives. More effectually to
retain the protection of the goddess until their escape was
effected, they attached a cord to her altar and held it in
their hands as they passed out through the midst of their
enemies. Unhappily the cord broke, and the archon Megacles at
once declared that the safeguard of Minerva was withdrawn from
them, whereupon they were massacred without mercy, even though
they fled to the neighboring altars and clung to them. The
treachery and bad faith of this cruel deed does not seem to
have disturbed the Athenian people, but the sacrilege involved
in it caused horror and fear when they had had time to reflect
upon it. Megacles and his whole family--the Alcmæonids as they
were called, from the name of one of their ancestors--were
held accountable for the affront to the gods and were
considered polluted and accursed. Every public calamity was
ascribed to their sin, and at length, after a solemn trial,
they were banished from the city (about 596 or 595 B. C.),
while the dead of the family were disinterred and cast out.
The agitations of this affair exercised an important influence
on the course of events, which opened the way for Solon and
his constitutional reforms.
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 11.
ALSO IN: G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 10.
ATHENS: B. C. 610-586.
Struggle with Megara for Salamis.
Cirrhæan or First Sacred War.
"The petty state of Megara, which, since the earlier ages,
had, from the dependent of Athens, grown up to the dignity of
her rival, taking advantage of the internal dissensions in the
latter city, succeeded in wresting from the Athenian
government the isle of Salamis. It was not, however, without
bitter and repeated struggles that Athens at last submitted to
the surrender of the isle. But, after signal losses and
defeats, as nothing is ever more odious to the multitude than
unsuccessful war, so the popular feeling was such as to induce
the government to enact a decree by which it was forbidden,
upon pain of death, to propose reasserting the Athenian
claims. ... Many of the younger portion of the community,
pining at the dishonour of their country, and eager for
enterprise, were secretly inclined to countenance any
stratagem that might induce the reversal of the decree. At
this time there went a report through the city that a man of
distinguished birth ... had incurred the consecrating
misfortune of insanity. Suddenly this person appeared in the
market place, wearing the peculiar badge distinguished the sick. ... Ascending the stone from which the
heralds made their proclamations, he began to recite aloud a
poem upon the loss of Salamis, boldly reproving the cowardice
of the people, and inciting them again to war. His supposed
insanity protected him from the law--his rank, reputation, and
the circumstance of his being himself a native of Salamis,
conspired to give to his exhortation a powerful effect, and
the friends he had secured to back his attempt loudly
proclaimed their applauding sympathy with the spirit of the
address. The name of the pretended madman was Solon, son of
Execestides, the descendant of Codrus. ... The stratagem and
the eloquence of Solon produced its natural effect upon his
spirited and excitable audience, and the public enthusiasm
permitted the oligarchical government to propose and effect
the repeal of the law. An expedition was decreed and planned,
and Solon was invested with its command. It was but a brief
struggle to recover the little island of Salamis. ... But the
brave and resolute Megarians were not men to be disheartened
by a single reverse; they persisted in the contest--losses
were sustained on either side, and at length both states
agreed to refer their several claims on the sovereignty of the
island to the decision of Spartan arbiters. And this appeal
from arms to arbitration is a proof how much throughout Greece
had extended that spirit of civilisation which is but an
extension of the sense of justice. ... The arbitration of the
umpires in favour of Athens only suspended hostilities; and
the Megarians did not cease to watch (and shortly afterwards
they found) a fitting occasion to regain a settlement so
tempting to their ambition. The credit acquired by Solon in
this expedition was shortly afterwards greatly increased in
the estimation of Greece. In the Bay of Corinth was situated a
town called Cirrha, inhabited by a fierce and lawless race,
who, after devastating the Sacred territories of Delphi,
sacrilegiously besieged the city itself, in the desire to
possess themselves of the treasures which the piety of Greece
had accumulated in the Temple of Apollo. Solon appeared at the
Amphictyonic council, represented the sacrilege of the
Cirrhæans, and persuaded the Greeks to arm in defence of the
altars of their tutelary god [B. C. 595]. Clisthenes, the
tyrant of Sicyon, was sent as commander-in-chief against the
Cirrhæans; and (according to Plutarch) the records of Delphi
inform us that Alcmæon was the leader of the Athenians. The
war [known as the First Sacred War] was not very successful at
the onset; the oracle of Apollo was consulted, and the answer
makes one of the most amusing anecdotes of priestcraft. The
besiegers were informed by the god that the place would not be
reduced until the waves of the Cirrhæan Sea washed the
territories of Delphi. The reply perplexed the army; but the
superior sagacity of Solon was not slow in discovering that
the holy intention of the oracle was to appropriate the lands
of the Cirrhæans to the profit of the temple. He therefore
advised the besiegers to attack and to conquer Cirrha, and to
dedicate its whole territory to the service of the god. The
advice was adopted--Cirrha was taken [B. C. 586]; it became
thenceforth the arsenal of Delphi, and the insulted deity had
the satisfaction of seeing the sacred lands washed by the
waves of the Cirrhæan Sea. ... The Pythian games commenced, or
were revived, in celebration of this victory of the Pythian god."
Sir E. Bulwer Lytton, Athens: Its Rise and Fall,
book 2, chapter 1.
See, also, DELPHI.
{148}
ATHENS: B. C. 594.
The Constitution of Solon.
The Council of Four Hundred.
"Solon, Archon Ol. 46,1, was chosen mediator. Equity and
moderation are described by the ancients as the
characteristics of his mind; he determined to abolish the
privileges of particular classes, and the arbitrary power of
officers, and to render all the participators in civil and
political freedom equal in the eye of the law, at the same
time ensuring to everyone the integrity of those lights to
which his real merits entitled him; on the other hand, he was
far from contemplating a total subversion of existing
regulations. ... Whatever was excellent in prescription was
incorporated with the new laws and thereby stamped afresh; but
prescription as such, with the exception of some unwritten
religious ordinances of the Eumolpids, was deprived of force.
The law was destined to be the sole centre, whence every
member of the political community was to derive a fixed rule
of conduct."
W. Wachsmuth, Historical Antiquities of the Greeks,
section 46 (volume 1).
"The factions, to allay the reviving animosities of which was
Solon's immediate object, had, at that time, formed parties
corresponding to the geographical division of the country,
which we have already adverted to; the Pediæi, or inhabitants
of the lowlands, insisted on a strict oligarchy; the Parali,
on the coast, who, did we not find the Alcmaeonid Megacles at
their head, might be considered the wealthier portion of the
people, wished for a mixed constitution; but the Diacrii or
Hyperacrii [of the mountainous district] formed the great
majority, who, in their impoverished state, looked for relief
only from a total revolution. Solon might, had he so chosen,
have made himself tyrant by heading this populace: but he
preferred acting as mediator, and with this view caused
himself to be elected archon, B. C. 594, as being an Eupatrid
of the house ... of Codrus."
C. F. Hermann, Manual of the Political
Antiquities of Greece, chapter 5, section 106.
"The chief power was vested in the collective people; but in
order that it might be exercised with advantage it was
necessary that they should be endowed with common rights of
citizenship. Solon effected this by raising the lower class
from its degradation, and by subjecting to legal control those
who had till now formed the governing order, as well as by
rendering the liberty of both dependent upon the law. ... This
change was brought about by two ordinances, which must not be
regarded as mere remedies for the abuses of that period, but
as the permanent basis of free and legal citizenship. The one
was the Seisachtheia; this was enacted by Solon to afford
relief to oppressed debtors, by reducing their debts in
amount, and by raising the value of money in the payment of
interest and principal; at the same time he abrogated the
former rigorous law of debt by which the freeman might be
reduced to servitude, and thus secured to him the unmolested
possession of his legal rights. ... A second ordinance
enjoined, that their full and entire rights should be restored
to all citizens who had incurred Atimia, except to absolute
criminals. This was not only destined to heal the wounds which
had been caused by the previous dissensions, but as till that
time the law of debt had been able to reduce citizens to
Atimia, and the majority of the Atimoi pointed out by Solon
were slaves for debt, that declaration stood in close
connection with the Seisachtheia, and had the effect of a
proclamation from the state of its intention to guarantee the
validity of the new citizenship. ... The right of
naturalization was granted by Solon to deserving aliens, when
6,000 citizens declared themselves in favour of the measure,
but these new citizens were likewise deficient in a few of the
privileges of citizenship. ... The statement that Solon
received a great many foreigners as citizens, and every
artizan that presented himself, appears highly improbable, as
Solon was the first legislator who systematically regulated
the condition of the Metœci. The Metœci ... probably took the
place of the former Demiurgi; their position was one of
sufferance, but the protection of the laws was guaranteed
them. ... The servile order, exclusively consisting of
purchased aliens and their descendants, did not, as a body,
stand in direct relation with the state; individual slaves
became the property of individual citizens, but a certain
number were employed by the state as clerks, etc., and were
abandoned to the arbitrary pleasure of their oppressive
taskmasters. ... Those who were manumitted stood upon the
footing of Metœci; the citizens who enfranchised them becoming
their Prostatæ. ... Upon attaining the age of puberty, the
sons of citizens entered public life under the name of Ephebi.
The state gave them two years for the full development of
their youthful strength. ... Upon the expiration of the
second, and according to the most authentic accounts, in their
eighteenth year, they received the shield and spear in the
popular assembly, complete armour being given to the sons of
those who had fallen in battle, and in the temple of Agraulos
took the oath of young citizens, the chief obligations of
which concerned the defence of their country, and then for the
space of one or two years performed military service in the
Attic border fortresses under the name of Peripoli. The
ceremony of arming them was followed by enrolment in the book
which contained the names of those who had attained majority;
this empowered the young citizen to manage his own fortune,
preside over a household, enter the popular assembly, and
speak. When he asserted the last right, viz., the Isegoria,
Parrhesia, he was denominated Rhetor, and this appellation
denoted the difference between him and the silent member of
the assembly, the Idiotes. ... Upon attaining his 30th year,
the citizen might assert his superior rights; he was qualified
for a member of the sworn tribunal entitled Heliæa. ... The
word Heliast does not merely signify a judge; but the citizen
who has fully attained maturity. ... The judges of the courts
of the Diætetæ and Ephetæ, which existed without the circle of
the ordinary tribunals, were required to be still older men
than the Heliasts, viz., 50 or 60 years of age. Solon
appointed gradations in the rights of citizenship, according
to the conditions of a census in reference to offices of
state. ... Upon the principle of a conditional equality of
rights, which assigns to everyone as much as he deserves, and
which is highly characteristic of Solon's policy in general,
he instituted four classes according to a valuation; these
were the Pentacosiomedimni [whose land yielded 500 measures of
wheat or oil], the Hippeis [horsemen], the Zeugitæ [owners of
a yoke of mules], and the Thetes [or laborers]. The valuation,
however, only affected that portion of capital from which
contributions to the state-burthens were required,
consequently, according to Böckh, a taxable capital. ... The
Thetes, the last of these classes, were not regularly summoned
to perform military service, but only exercised the civic
right as members of the assembly and the law-courts; ... the
highest class exclusively supplied the superior offices, such
as the archonship, and through this the council of the
Areopagus. ... In lieu of the former council of
administration, of which no memorial has been preserved, Solon
instituted a Council of four hundred citizens taken from the
first three classes, 100 from every Phyle, of which no person
under 30 years of age could be a member. The appointments were
renewed annually; the candidates underwent an examination, and
such as were deemed eligible drew lots."
W. Wachsmuth, Historical Antiquities of the Greeks,
section 46-47 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
G. F. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3, section 4.
E. Abbott, History of Greece, part 11, chapter 3.
G. Grote, History of Greece, chapter 11.
Plutarch, Solon.
Aristotle, On the Constitution of Athens
(translated by E. Poste), chapters 5-13.
See, also,
AREOPAGUS, PRYTANES, HELIÆA, and DEBT.
{149}
ATHENS: B. C. 560-510.
The tyranny of the Pisistratidæ.
"The constitution which he [Solon] framed was found to be
insufficient even in his own life-time. ... The poor citizens
were still poor, in spite of the Seisachtheia and the reform
of the constitution. At the same time the admission of the
lowest class in the scale of property to the rights of
Athenian citizenship, and the authority given to the General
Assembly, had thrown a power into the hands of the masses
which filled the more conservative citizens with resentment
and alarm. And so the old party quarrels, which had divided
Attica before the reforms of Solon, reappeared after them with
even greater violence. The men of the plain were led by
Miltiades, a grandson of the tyrant of Corinth, and Lycurgus,
the son of Aristolaidas; the men of the shore by Megacles, the
Alcmæonid, who had recently strengthened the position of his
family by his marriage with Agariste, the daughter of
Clisthenes of Sicyon. At the head of the mountaineers stood
Pisistratus, a descendant of the royal stock of Nestor, who
... had greatly distinguished himself in the Salaminian war.
As he possessed property in the neighborhood of Marathon,
Pisistratus may have been intimately known to the inhabitants
of the adjacent hills. ... Solon watched the failure of his
hopes with the deepest distress. He endeavoured to recall the
leaders of the contending parties to a sense of their duty to
the country, and to soothe the bitterness of their followers.
With a true instinct he regarded Pisistratus as by far the
most dangerous of the three. Pisistratus was an approved
general, and the faction which he led was composed of poor men
who had nothing to lose. ... Pisistratus met the vehement
expressions of Solon by driving wounded into the market-place.
The people's friend had suffered in the people's cause; his
life was in danger. The incident roused the Athenians to an
unusual exercise of political power. Without any previous
discussion in the Council, a decree was passed by the people
allowing Pisistratus to surround himself with a body-guard of
fifty men, and to arm them with clubs. Thus protected, he
threw off all disguises, and established himself in the
Acropolis as tyrant of Athens [B. C. 560]. ... Herodotus tells
us that Pisistratus was a just and moderate ruler. He did not
alter the laws or remove the existing forms of government. The
Council was still elected, the Assembly continued to meet,
though it is improbable that either the one or the other was
allowed to extend its functions beyond domestic affairs. The
archons still continued to be the executive magistrates of the
city, and cases of murder were tried, as of old, at the
Areopagus. The tyrant contented himself with occupying the
Acropolis with his troops and securing important posts in the
administration for his family or his adherents." Twice,
however, Pisistratus was driven from power by the combination
of his opponents, and into exile, for four years in the first
instance and for ten years in the last; but Athens was
compelled to accept him for a ruler in the end. "Pisistratus
remained in undisturbed possession of the throne till his
death in 527 B. C. He was succeeded by his eldest son Hippias,
with whom Hipparchus and Thessalus, his younger sons, were
associated in the government." But these younger tyrants soon
made themselves intolerably hateful, and a conspiracy formed
against them by Harmodius and Aristogeiton was successful in
taking the life of Hipparchus. Four years later, in 510 B. C.,
with the help of Delphi and Sparta, Hippias was driven from
the city. Clisthenes, at the head of the exiled Alcmæonids,
was the master-spirit of the revolution, and it was under his
guidance that the Athenian democratic
constitution was reorganized.
E. Abbott, History of Greece, volume 1, chapter 15.
ALSO IN:
G. Grote, History of Greece, chapter 11 and 30.
ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.
The constitution of Cleisthenes.
Advance of democracy.
"The expulsion of the Pisistratides left the democratical
party, which had first raised them to power, without a leader.
The Alcmæonids had always been considered as its adversaries,
though they were no less opposed to the faction of the nobles,
which seems at this time to have been headed by Isagoras. ...
Cleisthenes found himself, as his party had always been,
unable to cope with it; he resolved, therefore, to shift his
ground, and to attach himself to that popular cause which
Pisistratus had used as the stepping stone of his ambition.
His aims, however, were not confined to a temporary advantage
over his rivals; he planned an important change in the
constitution, which should forever break the power of his
whole order, by dissolving some of the main links by which
their sway was secured. For this purpose, having gained the
confidence of the commonalty and obtained the sanction of the
Delphic oracle, he abolished the four ancient tribes, and made
a fresh geographical division of Attica into ten new tribes,
each of which bore a name derived from some Attic hero. The
ten tribes were subdivided into districts of various extent,
called demes, each containing a town or village. ...
Cleisthenes appears to have preserved the ancient phratries;
but as they were now left insulated by the abolition of the
tribes to which they belonged, they lost all political
importance. ... Cleisthenes at the same time increased the
strength of the commonalty by making a great many new
citizens, and he is said to have enfranchised not only
aliens--and these both residents and adventurers from
abroad--but slaves. ... The whole frame of the state was
reorganized to correspond with the new division of the country.
{150}
The Senate of the Four Hundred was increased to Five Hundred,
that fifty might be drawn from each tribe, and the rotation of
the presidency was adapted to this change, the fifty
councillors of each tribe filling that office for thirty-five
or thirty-six days in succession, and nine councillors being
elected one from each of the other tribes to preside at the
Council and the Assembly of the People, which was now called
regularly four times in the month, certain business being
assigned to each meeting. The Heliæa was also distributed into
ten courts: and the same division henceforth prevailed in most
of the public offices, though the number of the archons
remained unchanged. To Cleisthenes also is ascribed the formal
institution of the ostracism. ... These changes, and the
influence they acquired for their author, reduced the party of
Isagoras to utter weakness, and they saw no prospect of
maintaining themselves but by foreign aid." Isagoras,
accordingly, applied for help to Cleomenes, one of the kings
of Sparta, who had already interfered in Athenian affairs by
assisting at the expulsion of the Pisistratidæ. Cleomenes
responded by coming to Athens with a small force [B. C. 508],
which sufficed to overawe the people, and, assuming
dictatorial authority, he established Isagoras in power, with
an attempted rearrangement of the government. "He began by
banishing 700 families designated by Isagoras, and then
proceeded to suppress the Council of the Five Hundred, and to
lodge the government in the hands of Three Hundred of his
friend's partisans. When, however, the councillors resisted
this attempt, the people took heart, and, Cleomenes and
Isagoras having occupied the citadel, rose in a body and
besieged them there. As they were not prepared to sustain a
siege, they capitulated on the third day: Cleomenes and
Isagoras were permitted to depart with the Lacedæmonian
troops, but they were compelled to abandon their adherents to
the mercy of their enemies. All were put to death, and
Cleisthenes and the 700 banished families returned
triumphantly to Athens." Cleomenes soon afterwards raised a
force with which to subdue Athens and restore Isagoras. The
Athenians in their alarm sent an embassy to Sardis to solicit
the protection of the Persians. Fortunately, nothing came of
it, and Cleomenes was so much opposed in his project, by the
Corinthians and other allies of Sparta, that he had to give it
up.
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 11.
ALSO IN:
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 31.
E. Abbott, History of Greece, chapter 15.
Aristotle, On the Constitution of Athens
(translated by E. Poste), chapter 20-22.
ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.
Hostile undertakings of Kleomenes and Sparta.
Help solicited from the Persian king.
Subjection refused.
Failure of Spartan schemes to restore tyranny.
Protest of the Corinthians.
Successful war with Thebes and Chalcis.
"With Sparta it was obvious that the Athenians now had a
deadly quarrel, and on the other side they knew that Hippias
was seeking to precipitate on them the power of the Persian
king. It seemed therefore to be a matter of stern necessity to
anticipate the intrigues of their banished tyrant; and the
Athenians accordingly sent ambassadors to Sardeis to make an
independent alliance with the Persian despot. The envoys, on
being brought into the presence of Artaphernes, the Satrap of
Lydia, were told that Dareios would admit them to an alliance
if they would give him earth and water,--in other words, if
they would acknowledge themselves his slaves. To this demand
of absolute subjection the envoys gave an assent which was
indignantly repudiated by the whole body of Athenian citizens.
... Foiled for the time in his efforts, Kleomenes was not cast
down. Regarding the Kleisthenian constitution as a personal
insult to himself, he was resolved that Isagoras should be
despot of Athens. Summoning the allies of Sparta [including
the Bœotian League headed by Thebes, and the people of Chalcis
in Eubœa], he led them as far as Eleusis, 12 miles only from
Athens, without informing them of the purpose of the campaign.
He had no sooner confessed it than the Corinthians, declaring
that they had been brought away from home on an unrighteous
errand, went back, followed by the other Spartan King,
Demaratos, the son of Ariston; and this conflict of opinion
broke up the rest of the army. This discomfiture of their
enemy seemed to inspire fresh strength into the Athenians, who
won a series of victories over the Boiotians and
Euboians"--completely overthrowing the latter--the
Chalcidians--taking possession of their city, and making it a
peculiar colony and dependency of Athens.--See KLERUCHS. The
anger of Kleomenes "on being discomfited at Eleusis by the
defection of his own allies was heightened by indignation at
the discovery that in driving out his friend Hippias he had
been simply the tool of Kleisthenes and of the Delphian
priestess whom Kleisthenes had bribed. It was now clear to him
and to his countrymen that the Athenians would not acquiesce
in the predominance of Sparta, and that if they retained their
freedom, the power of Athens would soon be equal to their own.
Their only safety lay, therefore, in providing the Athenians
with a tyrant. An invitation was, therefore, sent to Hippias
at Sigeion, to attend a congress of the allies at Sparta, who
were summoned to meet on the arrival of the exiled despot."
The appointed congress was held, and the Spartans besought
their allies to aid them in humbling the Athenian Democracy,
with the object of restoring Hippias to power. But again the
Corinthians protested, bluntly suggesting that if the Spartans
thought tyranny a good thing they might first try it for
themselves. Hippias, speaking in his own behalf, attempted to
convince them that the time was coming "in which they would
find the Athenians a thorn in their side. For the present his
exhortations were thrown away. The allies protested
unanimously against all attempts to interfere with the
internal administration of any Hellenic city; and the banished
tyrant went back disappointed to Sigeion."
G. W. Cox, The Greeks and the Persians, chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 31 (volume 4).
{151}
ATHENS: B. C. 501-490.
Aid to Ionians against Persia.
Provocation of King Darius.
His wrath and attempted vengeance.
The first Persian invasions.
Battle of Marathon.
"It is undeniable that the extension of the Persian dominion
over Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt gave a violent check to the
onward movement of Greek life. On the other hand, it seemed as
if the great enterprise of Darius Hystaspis against the
Scythians ought to have united the Greeks and Persians. It was
of a piece with the general policy of Darius that, after
defeating so many other adversaries, he undertook to prevent
for all succeeding time a repetition of those inroads with
which, some centuries before, the Scythians had visited Asia
and the civilized world. He possessed authority enough to
unite the different nations which obeyed his sceptre in a
great campaign against the Scythians. ... The Greeks were his
best allies in his campaign; they built him the bridge by
which he crossed the Bosporus, and also the bridge of boats
over the Danube by which he made his invasion into the enemy's
territory. The result was not one which could properly be
called unfortunate; yet it was certainly of a very doubtful
character. ... A great region, in which they had already
obtained very considerable influence, was closed to them once
more. The Persian army brought the populations upon the
Strymon, many in number and individually weak, under the
dominion of Persia; and even Amyntas, the king of Makedonia,
one of a race of rulers of Greek origin, was compelled to do
homage to the Great King. Thus the movement which had thrust
back the Greeks from Egypt and Asia Minor made advances even
into the regions of Europe which bordered upon Northern
Hellas. It was an almost inevitable consequence of this that
the Greeks were menaced and straitened even in their proper
home. A pretext and opportunity for an attack upon the Greek
islands was presented to the Persians by the questions at
issue between the populations of the cities and the tyrants.
... The instrument by whom the crisis was brought about was
not a person of any great importance. It is not always great
natures, or natures strong in the consciousness of their own
powers, that bring on such conflicts; this is sometimes the
work of those flexible characters which, being at the point of
contact between the opposing forces, pass from one side to the
other. Such a character was Aristagoras of Miletus. ...
Morally contemptible, but gifted intellectually with a range
of ideas of unlimited extent, Aristagoras made for himself an
imperishable name by being the first to entertain the thought
of a collective opposition to the Persians on the part of all
the Greeks, even contemplating the possibility of waging a
great and successful offensive war upon them. ... He announced
in Miletus his own resignation of power and the restoration to
the people of their old laws. ... A general overthrow of
tyranny ensued [B. C. 501], involving a revolt from Persia,
and Strategi were everywhere appointed. The supreme power in
the cities was based upon a good understanding between the
holders of power and the Persians; the fact that one of these
rulers found the authority of the Persians intolerable was the
signal for a universal revolt. Aristagoras himself voluntarily
renounced the tyranny, the other tyrants were compelled to
take the same course; and thus the cities, assuming at the
same time a democratic organization, came into hostility with
Persia. ... The cities and islands which had so often been
forced to submission could not hope to resist the Persians by
their own unaided efforts. Even Aristagoras could not have
expected so much. ... He visited Lakedæmon, the strongest of
the Greek powers, in person, and endeavored to carry her with
him in his plans. ... Rejected by Sparta, Aristagoras betook
himself to Athens. ... The Athenians granted Aristagoras
twenty ships, to which the Eretrians, from friendship to
Miletus, added five more. The courage of the Ionians was thus
revived, and an attack upon the Persian dominion commenced,
directed, not indeed against Susa, but against Sardis, in
their immediate neighborhood, the capital of the satrapy which
imposed on them their heaviest burdens. ... By the burning of
Sardis, in which a sanctuary of Kybele had been destroyed, the
Syrian nations had been outraged in the person of their gods.
We know that it was part of the system of the Persians to take
the gods of a country under their protection. Nor would the
great king who thought himself appointed to be master of the
world fail to resent an invasion of his dominions as an insult
calling for revenge. The hostile attempts of the Ionians made
no great impression upon him, but he asked who were the
Athenians, of whose share in the campaign he had been
informed. They were foreigners, of whose power the king had
scarcely heard. ... The enterprise of Aristagoras had
meanwhile caused general commotion. He had by far the larger
part of Cyprus, together with the Carians, on his side. All
the country near the Propontis and the Hellespont was in
revolt. The Persians were compelled to make it their first
concern to suppress this insurrection, a task which, if
attempted by sea, did not promise to be an easy one. In their
first encounter with the Phœnicians the Ionians had the
advantage. When, however, the forces of the great empire were
assembled, the insurrection was everywhere put down. ... It
must be reckoned among the consequences of the battle of Lade,
by which the combination against the Persian empire had been
annihilated, that King Darius, not content with having
consolidated his dominion in Ionia, once more resumed the plan
of pushing forward into Europe, of which his enterprise
against the Scythians formed part. With the execution of this
project he commissioned one of the principal persons of the
empire and the court, ... Mardonius by name, whom he united to
his family by marrying him to his daughter. ... This general
crossed the Hellespont with a large army, his fleet always
accompanying him along the shore whilst he pushed on by the
mainland. He once more subdued Makedonia, probably the
districts which had not yet, like the Makedonian king, been
brought into subjection, and gave out that his aim was
directed against Eretria and Athens, the enemies of the king.
... In the stormy waters near Mount Athos, which have always
made the navigation of the Ægean difficult, his fleet suffered
ship-wreck. But without naval supports he could not hope to
gain possession of an island and a maritime town situated on a
promontory. Even by land he encountered resistance, so that he
found it advisable to postpone the further execution of his
undertakings to another time. ... In order to subdue the
recalcitrants, especially Athens and Eretria, another attempt
was organized without delay. Under two generals, one of whom,
Datis, was a Mede, the other, Artaphernes, the son of the
satrap of Sardis of the same name, and brother of the Darius
who was in alliance with Hippias, a maritime expedition was
undertaken for the immediate subjugation of the islands and
the maritime districts.
{152}
It was not designed for open hostility against the Greeks in
general. ... Their design was to utilize the internal
dissensions of Greece in conquering the principal enemies upon
whom the Great King had sworn vengeance, and presenting them
as captives at his feet. The project succeeded in the case of
Eretria. In spite of a brave resistance it fell by treachery
into their hands, and they could avenge the sacrilege
committed at Sardis by plundering and devastating Grecian
sanctuaries. They expected now to be able to overpower Athens
also without much trouble. ... It was a circumstance of great
value to the Athenians that there was a man amongst them who
was familiar with the Persian tactics. This was Miltiades, the
son of Kimon. ... Although a Thracian prince, he had never
ceased to be a citizen of Athens. Here he was impeached for
having held a tyranny, but was acquitted and chosen strategus,
for the democracy could not reject a man who was so admirably
qualified to be at their head in the interchange of
hostilities with Persia. Miltiades was conducting his own
personal quarrel in undertaking the defence of Attica. The
force of the Persians was indeed incomparably the larger, but
the plains of Marathon, on which they were drawn up, prevented
their proper deployment, and they saw with astonishment the
Athenian hoplites displaying a front as extended as their own.
These troops now rushed upon them with an impetus which grew
swifter at every moment. The Persians easily succeeded in
breaking through the centre of the Athenian army; but that was
of no moment, for the strength of the onset lay in the two
wings, where now began a hand-to-hand fight. The Persian
sword, formidable elsewhere, was not adapted to do good
service against the bronze armor and the spear of the
Hellenes. On both flanks the Athenians obtained the advantage,
and now attacked the Persian centre, which was not able to
withstand the onslaught of men whose natural vigor was
heightened by gymnastic training. The Persians, to their
misfortune, had calculated upon desertion in the ranks of
their opponents; foiled in this hope, they retreated to the
shore and to their ships. Herodotus intimates that the
Persians had secret intelligence with a party in Athens, and
took their course round the promontory of Sunium toward the
city, in the hope of surprising it. But when they came to
anchor the Athenians had arrived also, and they saw themselves
once more confronted by the victors of Marathon."
L. von Ranke, Universal History, chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
Herodotus, History, book 6.
V. Duruy, History of Greece, chapter 16 (volume 2).
See, also, PERSIA: B. C. 521-493,
and GREECE: B. C. 492-491, and 490.
ATHENS: B. C. 489-480.
Condemnation and death of Miltiades.
The Æginetan war.
Naval power created by Themistocles.
"The victory of Marathon was chiefly due to Miltiades; it was
he who brought on the engagement, and he was chief in command
on the day when the battle was fought. Such a brilliant
success greatly improved his position in the city, and excited
in his enemies a still deeper hatred. Ever on the watch for an
opportunity to pull down their rival, it was not long before
they found one. Soon after his victory, Miltiades came before
the Athenians with a request that a squadron of 70 ships might
be placed at his disposal. The purpose for which he required
them he would not disclose, though pledging his word that the
expedition would add largely to the wealth and prosperity of
the city. The request being granted, he sailed with the ships
to Paros, an island which at this time was subject to Persia.
From the Parians he demanded 100 talents, and when they
refused to pay he blockaded the city. So vigorous and
successful was the resistance offered that, after a long
delay, Miltiades, himself dangerously wounded, was compelled
to return home. His enemies, with Xanthippus at their head, at
once attacked him for misconduct in the enterprise. ...
Miltiades was unable to reply in person; he was carried into
court, while his friends pleaded his cause. The sentence was
given against him, but the penalty was reduced from death to a
fine of 50 talents. So large a sum was more than even
Miltiades could pay; he was thrown into prison as a public
debtor, where he soon died from the mortification of his
wound. ... His condemnation was one in a long series of
similar punishments. The Athenians never learnt to be just to
those who served them, or to distinguish between treachery and
errors of judgment. ... We have very little information about
the state of Athens immediately after the battle of Marathon.
So far as we can tell, for the chronology is most uncertain,
she was now engaged in a war with Ægina. ... Meanwhile, a man
was rising to power, who may be said to have created the
history of Athens for the rest of the century,--Themistocles,
the son of Neocles. ... On the very day of Marathon,
Themistocles had probably made up his mind that the Persians
would visit Greece again. What was to keep them away, so long
as they were masters of the Ægean? ... With an insight almost
incredible he perceived that the Athenians could become a
maritime nation; that Athens possesses harbours large enough
to receive an enormous fleet, and capable of being strongly
fortified; that in possession of a fleet she could not only
secure her own safety, but stand forth as a rival power to
Sparta. But how could Themistocles induce the Athenians to
abandon the line in which they had been so successful for a
mode of warfare in which even Miltiades had failed? After the
fall of the great general, the conduct of affairs was in the
hands of Xanthippus ... and Aristides. ... They were by no
means prepared for the change which Themistocles was
meditating. This is more especially true of Aristides. He had
been a friend of Clisthenes; he was known as an admirer of
Spartan customs. ... He had been second in command at
Marathon, and was now the most eminent general at Athens. From
him Themistocles could only expect the most resolute
opposition. Xanthippus and Aristides could reckon on the
support of old traditions and great connections. Themistocles
had no support of the kind. He had to make his party ...
conscious of their own position, Aristides and Xanthippus
looked with contempt upon the knot of men who began to gather
round their unmannerly and uncultivated leader. And they
might, perhaps, have maintained their position if it had not
been for the Æginetan war. That unlucky struggle had begun,
soon after the reforms of Clisthenes, with an unprovoked
attack of the Æginetans on the coast of Attica (506 B. C.),
[Ægina being allied with Thebes in the war mentioned
above--B.C. 509-506].
{153}
It was renewed when the Æginetans gave earth and water to the
heralds of Darius in 491, and though suspended at the time of
the Persian invasion, it broke out again with renewed ferocity
soon afterwards. The Æginetans had the stronger fleet, and
defeated the Athenian ships. "Such experiences naturally
caused a change in the minds of the Athenians. ... It was
clear that the old arrangements for the navy were quite
inadequate to the task which was now required of them. Yet the
leaders of the state made no proposals." Themistocles now
"came forward publicly with proposals of naval reform, and, as
he expected, he drew upon himself the strenuous opposition of
Aristides. ... It was clear that nothing decisive could be
done in the Æginetan war unless the proposals of Themistocles
were carried; it was equally clear that they never would be
carried while Aristides and Xanthippus were at hand to oppose
them. Under these circumstances recourse was had to the
safety-valve of the constitution. Ostracism was proposed and
accepted; and in this manner, by 483 B. C., Themistocles had
got rid of both of his rivals in the city. He was now master
of the situation. The only obstacle to the realization of his
plans was the expense involved in building ships. And this he
was able to meet by a happy accident, which brought into the
treasury at this time a large surplus from the silver mines
from Laurium. ... By the summer of 480, the Athenians ... were
able to launch 180 vessels, besides providing 20 for the use
of the Chalcideans of Eubœa. ... At the same time Themistocles
set about the fortification of the Peiræus. ... Could he have
carried the Athenians with him, he would have made the Peiræus
the capital of the country, in order that the ships and the
city might be in close connection. But for this the people
were not prepared."
E. Abbott, Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens, chapter 2.
ALSO IN: Plutarch, Aristides.--Themistocles.
ATHENS: B. C. 481-479.
Congress at Corinth.
Organized Hellenic Union, under the headship of Sparta.
See GREECE: B. C. 481-479.
ATHENS: B. C. 480-479.
The second Persian invasion.
Thermopylæ, Artemisium, Salamis, Platæa.
Abandonment of the City.
"The last days of Darius were clouded by the disaster of
Marathon; 'that battle formed the turning point of his good
fortune,' and it would seem that the news of it led to several
insurrections, particularly that of Egypt; but they were soon
put down. Darius died (Olymp. 73, 3), and Xerxes, who
succeeded him, was prevented from taking revenge on the
Athenians by the revolt of Egypt, which engaged his attention
during the first years of his reign. But he completely
conquered the insurgents after they had maintained themselves
about four or five years; and he then made preparations for
that vengeance on Athens for which his barbarian pride was
longing. The account of the three years' preparations of
Xerxes, how he assembled his army in Asia Minor, how he made a
bridge across the Hellespont, how he cut a canal through the
isthmus of Mount Athos to prevent his fleet being destroyed by
storms--all this is known to everyone who has read Herodotus.
History is here so much interwoven with poetry, that they can
no longer be separated. ... The Greeks awaited the attack
(Olymp. 75, 1), 'but they were not agreed among themselves.
The Argives from hatred of Sparta joined the Persians, and the
miserable Boeotians likewise supported them. The others kept
together only from necessity; and without the noble spirit of
the Athenians Greece would have been lost, and that from the
most paltry circumstances. A dispute arose as to who was to be
honoured with the supreme command; the Athenians gave way to
all, for their only desire was to save Greece. Had the
Persians moved on rapidly, they would have met with no
resistance, but they proceeded slowly, and matters turned out
differently.' A Greek army was encamped at Tempe, at the
entrance of Thessaly, and at first determined on defending
Thessaly. But they must have seen that they could be entirely
surrounded from Upper Thessaly; and when they thus discovered
the impossibility of stopping the Persians, they retreated.
The narrative now contains one inconceivable circumstance
after another. ... It is inconceivable that, as the Greeks did
make a stand at Thermopylae, no one else took his position
there except King Leonidas and his Spartans, not including
even the Lacedaemonians, for they remained at home! Only 1,000
Phocians occupied the heights, though that people might surely
have furnished 10,000 men; 400 of the Boeotians were posted in
the rear, as a sort of hostages, as Herodotus remarks, and 700
Thespians. Where were all the rest of the Greeks? ...
Countless hosts are invading Greece; the Greeks want to defend
themselves, and are making active preparations at sea; but on
land hundreds of thousands are met by a small band of
Peloponnesians. 700 Thespians, 400 Thebans as hostages, and
1,000 Phocians, stationed on the heights! A pass is occupied,
but only that one, and the others are left unguarded. ... All
this is quite unintelligible; it would almost appear as if
there had been an intention to sacrifice Leonidas and his men;
but we cannot suppose this. These circumstances alone suggest
to us, that the numbers of the Persian army cannot have been
as great as they are described; but even if we reduce them to
an immense extent, it still remains inconceivable why they
were not opposed by greater numbers of the Greeks, for as
afterwards they ventured to attack the Persians in the open
field, it was certainly much more natural to oppose them while
marching across the hills. But however this may be, it is an
undoubted fact, that Leonidas and his Spartans fell in the
contest, of which we may form a conception from the
description of Herodotus, when after a resistance of three
days they were surrounded by the Persians. A few of the
Spartans escaped on very excusable grounds, but they were so
generally despised, that their life became unendurable, and
they made away with themselves. This is certainly historical.
... After the victory of Thermopylae all Hellas lay open
before the Persians, and they now advanced towards Athens, a
distance which they could march in a few days. Thebes opened
her gates, and joyfully admitted them from hatred of Athens.
Meantime a portion of the army appeared before Delphi. It is
almost inconceivable that the Persians did not succeed in
taking the temple. ... The miracles by which the temple is
said to have been saved, are repeated in the same manner
during the attack of the Gauls.
{154}
But the temple of Delphi was certainly not
plundered.' ... The city of Athens had in the meantime been
abandoned by all the people; the defenceless had taken refuge
in the small island of Salamis, or of Troezen, 'and all the
Athenians capable of bearing arms embarked in the fleet.' ...

The Persians thus took Athens without any resistance. ...
During the same days on which the battle of Thermopylae was
fought, the Greek fleet was engaged in two indecisive but
glorious battles near the promontory of Artemisium. 'In a
third the Persians gained the upper hand, and when the Greeks
at the same time heard of the defeat at Thermopylae, they
withdrew, and doubling Cape Sunium sailed towards Salamis.'
God sent them a storm whereby the Persians in their pursuit
suffered shipwreck. ... While the Greek fleet was stationed in
the channel between the island of Salamis and Attica, towards
Piraeeus, discord broke out among the Greeks. The
Peloponnesians thought only of themselves; they had fortified
the Isthmus; there they were assembled, and there they wanted
to offer resistance to the Persians. In their folly they
forgot, that if the enemy with his superior fleet, should turn
against Peloponnesus, they might land wherever they liked. ...
But Themistocles now declared, that all the hopes of the
Athenians were directed towards the recovery of their own
city; that, if the Peloponnesians should sacrifice them, and,
thinking of themselves only, should abandon Attica to the
barbarians, the Athenians would not be so childish as to
sacrifice themselves for them, but would take their women and
children on board their ships, and sail far away from the
Persians to the island of Sardinia, or some other place where
Greek colonies were established; that there they would settle
as a free people, and abandon Peloponnesus to its fate; and
that then the peninsula would soon be in the hands of the
enemy. This frightened the Peloponnesians, and they resolved
to stand by Athens. It is evident that, throughout that time,
Themistocles had to struggle with the most intolerable
difficulties, which the allies placed in his way, as well as
with their jealousy, meanness, and insolence. 'The rudeness of
the Spartans and Corinthians is nowhere more strongly
contrasted with the refinement of the Athenians, than on that
occasion.' But after he had tried everything, and overcome by
every possible means a hundred different difficulties, he yet
saw, that he could not rely on the perseverance of the
Peloponnesians, and that they would turn to the Isthmus as
soon as Xerxes should proceed in that direction. He
accordingly induced the Persian king, by a false message, to
surround the Greek fleet, for the purpose of cutting off the
retreat of the Peloponnesians. He declared himself ready to
deliver the whole of the Greek fleet into his hands. This
device was quite to the mind of the Persians; Xerxes believed
him, and followed his advice. When Themistocles was thus sure
of the Peloponnesians, the ever-memorable battle of Salamis
commenced, which is as certainly historical as that of Cannae,
or any modern battle, 'whatever the numbers may be.' The
battle proceeded somewhat in the manner of the battle of
Leipzig: when the issue was decided, a portion of those who
ought to have joined their countrymen before, made common
cause with the Greeks. ... Their accession increased the
victory of the Greeks. ... Certain as the battle of Salamis
is, all the accounts of what took place after it, are very
doubtful. This much is certain, that Xerxes returned, 'leaving
a portion of his army under Mardonius in Greece;' ... Winter
was now approaching, and Mardonius withdrew from ravaged
Attica, taking up his winter-quarters partly in Thessaly and
partly in Boeotia. ... The probability is, that the Athenians
remained the winter in Salamis in sheds, or under the open
sky. Mardonius offered to restore to them Attica uninjured, so
far as it had not already been devastated, if they would
conclude peace with him. They might at that time have obtained
any terms they pleased, if they had abandoned the common cause
of the Greeks; and the Persians would have kept the peace; for
when they concluded treaties they observed them: they were not
faithless barbarians. But on this occasion again, we see the
Athenian people in all its greatness and excellence; it
scorned such a peace, and preferred the good of the
Peloponnesians. ... Mardonius now again advanced towards
Athens; the Spartans, who ought to have proceeded towards
Cithaeron, had not arrived, and thus he again took possession
of Attica and ravaged it completely. At length, however
(Olymp. 75, 2), the Athenians prevailed upon the
Peloponnesians to leave the Isthmus, and they gradually
advanced towards Boeotia. There the battle of Plataeae was
fought. ... In regard to the accounts of this battle, it is
historically certain that it was completely won by the Greeks,
and that the remnants of the Persian army retreated without
being vigorously pursued. It must have reached Asia, but it
then disappears. It is also historically certain, that
Pausanias was the commander of the allied army of the Greeks.
... After their victory, the Greeks advanced towards Thebes.
In accordance with a vow which they had made before the war,
Thebes ought to have been destroyed by the Greeks. But their
opinions were divided. ... On the same day on which the battle
of Plataeae was fought, the allied Greeks gained as complete a
victory at sea. ... After this victory of Mycale, the Ionian
cities revolted against the Persians."
B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient History,
volume 1, lectures. 37 and 38.
ALSO IN:
Herodotus, History; translated and edited by H. Rawlinson,
book 7 (volume 4).
Plutarch, Themistocles.
G. W. Cox, The Greeks and Persians.
ATHENS: B. C. 479-478.
Protection of Ionia assumed.
Siege and capture of Sestus.
Rebuilding and enlargement of the city and its walls.
Interference of Sparta foiled by Themistocles.
"The advantages obtained by the Hellenes [in their war with
Persia] came upon them so unexpectedly as to find them totally
unprepared, and accordingly embarrassed by their own
victories. What was to be done with Ionia? Was the whole
country to be admitted into the Hellenic confederation? Too
great a responsibility would, in the opinion of the
Peloponnesians, be incurred by such a step. ... It would be
better to sacrifice the country, and establish the Ionians in
settlements in other parts, at the expense of those who had
favoured the Medes, i. e., of the Argives, Bœotians, Locrians,
and Thessalians. ... The Athenians, on the other hand,
espoused the cause of the cities. ... Ionia ought to be a
bulwark against the Barbarians, and to belong to the Hellenes.
{155}
... The Athenians found a support in the feeling prevalent
among the Ionians, who were naturally opposed to any forced
settlement. Accordingly, in the first instance, Samos, Lesbos,
Chios, and a number of other island-towns, were admitted into
the confederation ... and a new Hellas was formed, a Greek
empire comprehending both sides of the sea. Considerations of
caution made it necessary, above all, to secure the passage
from Asia to Europe; for it was universally believed that the
bridge over the Hellespont was either still in existence or
had been restored. When it was found to have been destroyed,
the Peloponnesians urged the termination of the campaign. ...
The Athenians, on the other hand, declared themselves resolved
... not to leave unfinished what they had begun. Sestus, the
strongest fortress on the Hellespont, ought not to be left in
the hands of the enemy; an attack on it ought to be risked
without delay, before the city had prepared for a siege. They
allowed the Peloponnesians to take their departure, and under
the command of Xanthippus united with the ships of the Ionians
and Hellespontians for the purpose of new undertakings." The
Persians in Sestus resisted obstinately, enduring a long
siege, but were forced to surrender at last. "Meanwhile, the
main point consisted in the Athenians having remained alone in
the field, in their having fraternized with the Ionians as one
naval power, and having after such successes attained to a
confidence in victory, to which no enterprise any longer
seemed either too distant or too difficult. Already they
regarded their city as the centre of the coast-lands of
Greece. But what was the condition of this city of Athens
itself? A few fragments of the ancient city wall, a few
scattered houses, which had served the Persian commanders as
their quarters, were yet standing; the rest was ashes and
ruins. After the battle of Platææ the inhabitants had returned
from Salamis, Trœzene, and Ægina; not even the fleet and its
crews were at hand to afford them assistance. They endeavoured
to make shift as best they could, to pass through the trials
of the winter. As soon as the spring arrived, the restoration
of the city was commenced with all possible activity. ... But
even now it was not the comforts of domesticity which occupied
their thoughts, but, above all, the city as a whole and its
security. To Themistocles, the founder of the port-town,
public confidence was in this matter properly accorded." It
was not possible "to carry out a new and regular plan for the
city; but it was resolved to extend its circumference beyond
the circle of the ancient walls, ... so as to be able, in case
of a future siege, to offer a retreat to the
country-population within the capital itself. ... But the
Athenians were not even to be permitted to build their walls
undisturbed; for, as soon as their grand plan of operations
became known, the envy and insidious jealousy of their
neighbours broke out afresh. ... The Peloponnesian states,
above all Ægina and Corinth, hastened to direct the attention
of Sparta to the situation of affairs. ... As at Sparta city
walls were objected to on principle, and as no doubts
prevailed with regard to the fact that z well-fortified town
was impregnable to the military art of the Peloponnesians, it
was actually resolved at any price to prevent the building of
the walls in Attica." But, for shame's sake, the interference
undertaken by Sparta was put upon the ground that in the event
of a future invasion of the country, only the peninsula could
be successfully defended; that central Greece would
necessarily be abandoned to the enemy; and that every
fortified city in it would furnish him a dangerous base. "At
such a crisis craft alone could be of avail. When the Spartans
made their imperious demand at Athens, Themistocles ordered
the immediate cessation of building operations, and with
assumed submissiveness, promised to present himself at Sparta,
in order to pursue further negotiations in person. On his
arrival there, he allowed one day after the other to go by,
pretending to be waiting for his fellow envoys." In the
meantime, all Athens was toiling night and day at the walls,
and time enough was gained by the audacious duplicity of
Themistocles to build them to a safe height for defence. "The
enemies of Athens saw that their design had been foiled, and
were forced to put the best face upon their discomfiture. They
now gave out that they had intended nothing beyond good
advice."
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 3, chapter 2 (volume 2).
ALSO IN G. W. Cox, History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 7-8 (volume 1-2).
ATHENS: B. C. 478-477.
Alienation of the Asiatic Greeks from Sparta.
Formation of the Confederacy of Delos.
The founding of Athenian Empire.
See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.
ATHENS: B. C. 477-462.
Constitutional gains for the democracy.
Ascendency of Aristeides.
Declining popularity and ostracism of Themistokles.
The sustentation of the commons.
The stripping of power from the Areopagus.
At the time when the Confederacy of Delos was formed, "the
Persians still held not only the important posts of Eion on
the Strymon and Doriskus in Thrace, but also several other
posts in that country which are not specified to us. We may
thus understand why the Greek cities on and near the Chalkidic
peninsula ... were not less anxious to seek protection in the
bosom of the new confederacy than the Dorian islands of Rhodes
and Cos, the Ionic islands of Samos and Chios, the Æolic
Lesbos and Tenedos, or continental towns such as Miletus and
Byzantium. ... Some sort of union, organised and obligatory
upon each city, was indispensable to the safety of all.
Indeed, even with that aid, at the time when the Confederacy
of Delos was first formed, it was by no means certain the
Asiatic enemy would be effectually kept out, especially as the
Persians were strong not merely from their own force, but also
from the aid of internal parties in many of the Grecian
states--traitors within, as well as exiles without. Among
these traitors, the first in rank as well as the most
formidable, was the Spartan Pausanias." Pausanias, whose
treasonable intrigues with the Persian king began at Byzantium
(See GREECE: B. C. 478-477) was convicted some nine or ten
years later, and suffered a terrible fate, being shut within a
temple to which he had fled, and starved. "His treasonable
projects implicated and brought to disgrace a man far greater
than himself--the Athenian Themistokles. ... The charge
[against Themistokles] of collusion with the Persians connects
itself with the previous movement of political parties. ...
The rivalry of Themistokles and Aristeides had been greatly
appeased by the invasion of Xerxes, which had imposed upon both
the peremptory necessity of cooperation against a common enemy.
{156}
And apparently it was not resumed during the times which
immediately succeeded the return of the Athenians to their
country: at least we hear of both in effective service and in
prominent posts. Themistokles stands forward as the contriver
of the city walls and architect of Peiraeus: Aristeides is
commander of the fleet and first organiser of the Confederacy
of Delos. Moreover we seem to detect a change in the character
of the latter. He had ceased to be the champion of Athenian
old-fashioned landed interest, against Themistokles as the
originator of the maritime innovations. Those innovations had
now, since the battle of Salamis, become an established fact.
... From henceforth the fleet is endeared to every man as the
grand force, offensive and defensive, of the state, in which
character all the political leaders agree in accepting it. ...
The triremes, and the men who manned them, taken collectively,
were now the determining element in the state. Moreover, the
men who manned them had just returned from Salamis, fresh from
a scene of trial and danger, and from a harvest of victory,
which had equalized for the moment all Athenians as sufferers,
as combatants, and as patriots. ... The political change
arising from hence in Athens was not less important than the
military. 'The maritime multitude, authors of the victory of
Salamis,' and instruments of the new vocation at Athens as
head of the Delian Confederacy, appear now ascendant in the
political constitution also; not in any way as a separate or
privileged class, but as leavening the whole mass,
strengthening the democratical sentiment, and protesting
against all recognised political inequalities. ... Early after
the return to Attica, the Kleisthenian constitution was
enlarged as respects eligibility to the magistracy. According
to that constitution, the fourth or last class on the Solonian
census, including the considerable majority of freemen, were
not admissible to offices of state, though they possessed
votes in common with the rest; no person was eligible to be a
magistrate unless he belonged to one of the three higher
classes. This restriction was now annulled and eligibility
extended to all the citizens; We may appreciate the strength
of feeling with which such reform was demanded when we find
that it was proposed by Aristeides. ... The popularity thus
ensured to him, probably heightened by some regret for his
previous ostracism, was calculated to acquire permanence from
his straightforward and incorruptible character, now brought
into strong relief by his function as assessor to the new
Delian Confederacy. On the other hand, the ascendency of
Themistokles, though so often exalted by his unrivalled
political genius and daring, as well as by the signal value of
his public recommendations, was as often overthrown by his
duplicity of means and unprincipled thirst for money. New
political opponents sprung up against him, men sympathising
with Aristeides. ... Of these the chief were Kimon [Cimon],
(son of Miltiades), and Alkmæon." In 471 B. C. Themistokles
was sent into exile by a vote of ostracism, and retired to
Argos. Five years later he was accused of complicity in the
treasonable intrigues of Pausanias, and fled to the court of
the Persian king, where he spent the remainder of his days.
"Aristeides died about three or four years after the ostracism
of Themistokles."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 44 (volume 5).
The constitutional effects of the Persian war, and the
political situation of Athens immediately after the war, are
represented somewhat differently from the account above, in
the lately discovered work on the Constitution of Athens which
is attributed to Aristotle. The following is quoted from one
of the translations of the latter: "After the Median war the
council of Areopagus [See AREOPAGUS] recovered strength and
ruled the state, not that any law conferred the hegemony on
them, but because the aristocratic party had the credit of the
victory at Salamis. For when the generals had despaired of the
country and proclaimed a sauve qui peut, the Areopagus raised
funds, gave every man eight drachmas (6s. 6d.) and induced
them to man the ships. In consequence of this public service
the Ecclesia yielded the ascendency to the Areopagus, and
public affairs were admirably administered during the
following epoch. For they acquired the art of war, made their
name honoured throughout the Hellenic world, and possessed
themselves of the sovereignty of the sea with the consent of
Lakedaimon. At this time the leaders of the commons were
Aristeides, son of Lusimachos, and Themistokles, son of
Neokles; the latter studious of the arts of war, the former
reputed eminent in statesmanship and honest beyond his
contemporaries; which characters made their countrymen employ
the one as a general, the other as a councillor. The
rebuilding of the walls of Athens was their joint work, though
they were otherwise at feud. The detachment of the Ionians
from Persia and the formation of an alliance with Sparta were
due to the counsels of Aristeides, who seized the opportunity
afforded by the discredit cast on the Lakonians by the conduct
of Pausanias. He too originally apportioned, two years after
the battle of Salamis, in the archonship of Timosthenes (478
B. C.), the contribution to be paid by the islanders. ...
Subsequently, when lofty thoughts filled every bosom and
wealth was accumulating, Aristeides advised them to administer
the hegemony with their own hands, to leave their country
occupations and fix their domicile in the city. Sustentation,
he promised, would be provided for all, either as soldiers or
sailors in active service, or as troops in garrison or as
public servants; and then they could increase the vigour of
their imperial sway. They followed his advice, and, taking the
rule into their own hands, reduced their allies to the
position of vassals, except the Chians, Lesbians, and Samians,
whom they kept as satellites of their power, and permitted to
retain their own constitutions and to rule their own
dependencies: and they provided for their own sustentation by
the method which Aristeides indicated; for in the end the
public revenues, the taxes and the tributes of the allies gave
maintenance to more than 20,000. There were 6,000 dicasts or
jurors, 1,600 archers, 1,200 cavalry, 500 senators, 500
soldiers of the dockyard garrison, 50 city guards, 700 home
magistrates, 700 foreign magistrates, 2,500 heavy armed
soldiers (this was their number at the beginning of the
Peloponnesian war), 4,000 sailors manning 20 guardships, 2,000
sailors appointed by lot, manning 20 tribute-collecting ships,
and in addition to these the Prutaneion, the orphans, the
gaolers; and all these persons were maintained at the expense
of the national treasury. The sustentation of the commons was
thus secured.
{157}
The 17 years which followed the Median war were about the
period during which the country continued under the ascendency
of the Areopagus, though its aristocratic features were
gradually on the wane. When the masses had grown more and more
preponderant, Ephialtes, son of Sophonides, reputed
incorruptible in his loyalty to democracy, became leader of
the commons, and began to attack the Areopagus. First, he put
to death many of its members, by impeaching them of offences
committed in their administration. Afterwards in the
archonship of Konon (462 B. C.) he despoiled the council
itself of all its more recently acquired attributes, which
were the keystone of the existing constitution, and
distributed them among the Senate of 500, the Ecclesia, and
the courts of law. In this work he had the co-operation of
Themistokles, who was himself an Areopagite, but expecting to
be impeached for treasonable correspondence with Persia. ...
Ephialtes and Themistokles kept accusing the Areopagus before
the Senate of 500, and again before the commons, till finally
they stripped it of all its principal functions. The
assassination of Ephialtes by the instrumentality of
Aristodikos of Tanagra followed not long after. Such were the
circumstances of the overthrow of the Areopagus. After this
the degradation of the constitution proceeded without
intermission from the eagerness of politicians to win popular
favour; and at the same time there happened to be no organizer
of the aristocratic party, whose head, Kimon, the son of
Miltiades, was too young for some years to enter political
life; besides which their ranks were much devastated by war.
Expeditionary forces were recruited by conscription; and as
the generals had no military experience and owed their
appointment to the reputation of their ancestors, each
expedition entailed the sacrifice of 2,000 or 3,000 lives,
chiefly of the noblest sons of Athens, whether belonging to
the wealthy classes or to the commons."--Aristotle, On the
Constitution of Athens (translated by E. Poste.) chapter
23-26.--On the above, Dr. Abbott comments as follows: "So much
of this account as refers to Themistocles may be at once
dismissed as unhistorical. ... If the evidence of Thucydides
is to count for anything, it is quite certain that
Themistocles finally left Greece for Persia about 466 B. C.
... Plutarch says not a word about Themistocles. But the
remainder of the account [of the attack on the Areopagus] is
supported by all our authorities--if indeed it is not merely
repeated by them."
E. Abbott, History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 11, section 5.
ALSO IN
J. P. Mahaffy, Problems in Greek History page 96.
Plutarch, Themistocles.
See, also, below: B. C. 466-454.
ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.
Continued war against the Persians.
Cimon's victories at the Eurymedon.
Revolt and subjugation of Naxos.
"Under the guidance of Athens, the war against the Persians
was continued. Cimon [Kimon] sailed with a fleet to the coast
of Thrace, and laid siege to Eion on the Strymon [B. C. 470].
The Persian garrison made a gallant defence; and finally
Boges, the governor, rather than surrender, cast all his gold
and silver into the river; and, having raised a huge pile of
wood, slew his wives, children and slaves, and laid their
bodies on it; then setting fire to it, he flung himself into
the flames: the garrison surrendered at discretion. Doriscus
was attacked in vain, but all the other Persian garrisons in
Europe were reduced. Cimon then, as executor of an
Amphictyonic decree, turned his arms against the piratic
Dolopians of the Isle of Scyros, whom he expelled, and filled
the island with Athenian colonists. On this occasion he sought
and found (as was supposed) the bones of the hero Theseus, who
had died in this island 800 years before; and he brought them
in his own trireme to Athens,--an act which gained him great
favour with the people. By this time, some of the confederates
were grown weary of war, and began to murmur at the toils and
expense to which it put them. The people of Naxos were the
first who positively refused to contribute any longer; but the
Athenians, who had tasted of the sweets of command, would not
now permit the exercise of free will to their allies. Cimon
appeared (Ol. 78,3) [B. C. 466] with a large fleet before
Naxos; the Naxians defended themselves with vigour, but were
at length forced to submit; and the Athenians had the
hardihood to reduce them to the condition of subjects to
Athens--an example which they soon followed in other cases.
... After the reduction of Naxos, Cimon sailed over to the
coast of Asia, and learning that the Persian generals had
assembled a large fleet and army in Pamphylia, he collected a
fleet of 200 triremes at Cnidos, with which he proceeded to
the coast of that country, and laid siege to the city of
Phaselis, which, though Greek, obeyed the Persian monarch.
Having reduced it to submission, he resolved to proceed and
attack the Persian fleet and army, which he learned were lying
at the river Eurymedon. On his arrival, the Persian fleet, of
350 triremes, fearing at first to fight till 80 Phoenician
vessels, which they were expecting, should come up, kept in
the river; but finding that the Greeks were preparing to
attack, they put out to sea and engaged them. The action did
not continue long: the Barbarians fled to the land; 200 ships
fell into the hands of the victors, and several were
destroyed. Without a moment's delay, Cimon disembarked his
men, and led them against the land forces: the resistance of
the Persians was obstinate for some time, but at last they
turned and fled, leaving their camp a prey to the conquerors;
and Cimon had thus the rare glory of having gained two
important victories in the one day. Hearing then that the 80
Phoenician vessels were at Hydros, in the Isle of Cyprus, he
immediately sailed thither and took or destroyed the whole of
them. The victory on the Eurymedon may be regarded as the
termination of the conflict between Greece and Persia. The
year after it (Ol. 78,4) [B. C. 465], Xerxes was assassinated,
and the usual confusion took place in the court of Susa."
T. Keightley, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 13.
ALSO IN
W. W. Lloyd, The Age of Pericles, chapter 27 (volume 1).
See also PERSIA: B. C. 486-405.
{158}
ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.
Leadership in the Delian confederacy changed to sovereignty.
Revolt and subjugation of Thasos.
Help to Sparta and its ungracious requital.
Fall and exile of Cimon.
Rise of Pericles and the democratic anti-Spartan policy.
Removal of the federal treasury from Delos.
Building the Long Walls.
"It was now evident to the whole body of the allies of Athens
that by joining the league they had provided themselves with a
mistress rather than a leader. ... Two years after the
reduction of Naxos another powerful island-state broke out
into rebellion against the supremacy of Athens. The people of
Thasos had from very early times possessed territory on the
mainland of Thrace opposite to their island. By holding this
coast-slip they engrossed the trade of the Valley of the
Strymon, and held the rich gold mines of Mount Pangaeus. But
the Athenians, after the capture of Eïon, set themselves to
develop that port as the commercial centre of Thrace. ... A
spot called 'The Nine Ways,' ... where that great river first
begins to broaden out into its estuary, but can still be
spanned by a bridge, was the chosen site of a fortress to
secure the hold of Athens on the land. But the native Thracian
tribes banded themselves together, and fell upon the invaders
with such desperation that ... the Athenian armies were
defeated. ... It was probably the discouragement which this
defeat caused at Athens that emboldened Thasos to declare her
secession from the Confederacy of Delos. She wished to save
her Thracian trade, before Athens could make another attempt
to divert it from her. The Thasians did not rely on their own
resources alone; they enlisted the Thracians and Macedonians
of the mainland, and sent to Sparta to endeavour to induce the
ephors to declare war on Athens." The Spartans were well
disposed to take up the cause of the Thasians; but at that
moment they were overwhelmed by the calamity of the frightful
Earthquake of 464, instantly followed by the rising of the
Helots and the third Messenian war (See MESSENIAN WAR, THE
THIRD). "The island-state was therefore left to its own
resources; and these were so considerable that she held out
against the force of the Athenian confederacy for two whole
years. ... She was obliged at last to surrender to Cimon [B.
C. 463], whose army had long been lying before her walls. Like
Naxos, she was punished for her defection by the loss of her
war-fleet and her fortifications, and the imposition of a fine
of many talents. Still more galling must have been the loss of
her trade with Thrace, which now passed entirely into Athenian
hands. ... The Spartans were still engaged in a desperate
struggle with their revolted subjects when the siege of Thasos
came to an end. Cimon, who was now at the height of his
reputation and power, saw with distress the troubles of the
city he so much admired. He set himself to persuade the
Athenians that they ought to forego old grudges, and save from
destruction the state which had shared with them the glory of
the Persian war. ... His pleading was bitterly opposed by the
anti-Spartan party at Athens, headed by two statesmen,
Ephialtes and Pericles, who had already come into notice as
antagonists of Cimon. But the more generous and unwise policy
prevailed, and 4,000 hoplites were sent to the aid of Sparta
[B. C. 462]. This army was pursued by misfortune; it was so
unsuccessful in attacking Ithome that the Spartans attributed
its failure to ill will rather than ill luck. They, therefore,
began to treat their allies with marked discourtesy, and at
last sent them home without a word of thanks, merely stating
that their services could be of no further use [See MESSENIAN
WAR, THE THIRD]. This rudeness and ingratitude fully justified
the anti-Spartan party at Athens. ... Cimon was now no longer
able to deal with the policy of the state as he chose, and the
conduct of affairs began to pass into the hands of men whose
foreign and domestic policy were alike opposed to all his
views. Ephialtes and Pericles proceeded to form alliances
abroad with all the states which were ill disposed toward
Sparta, and at home to commence a revision of the
constitution. They were determined to carry out to its
furthest logical development the democratic tendency which
Cleisthenes had introduced into the Athenian polity. Of
Ephialtes, the son of Sophonides, comparatively little is
known. But Pericles ... was the son of Xanthippus, the accuser
of Miltiades in 489, B. C., and the victor of Mycale and
Sestos; while, on his mother's side, he came of the blood of
the Alcmaeonidae. Pericles was staid, self-contained, and
haughty--a strange chief for the popular party. But his
relationship to Cleisthenes, and the enmity which existed
between his house and that of Cimon, urged him to espouse the
cause of democracy. ... While Cimon had Greece in his mind,
Pericles could only think of Athens, and the temper of the
times was favourable to the narrower policy. ... The first aim
which Pericles and Ephialtes set before themselves was the
cutting down of the power of the Areopagus [See above: B. C.
477-462]. That body had since the Persian war become the
stronghold of the Conservative and philo-Laconian party. ...
Ephialtes took the lead in the attack on the Areopagus. He
chose a moment when Cimon was away at sea, bent on assisting a
rebellion against the Great King which had broken out in
Egypt. After a violent struggle, he succeeded in carrying a
law which deprived the Areopagus of its ancient censorial
power, and reduced it to a mere court to try homicides. ...
When Cimon came home from Egypt he was wildly enraged. ...
Recourse was had to the test of ostracism. It decided against
Cimon, who therefore went into banishment [B. C. 459]. But
this wrong against the greatest general of Athens was, not
long after, avenged by an over-zealous and unscrupulous
friend. Ephialtes was slain by assassins in his own house. ...
The immediate result of this murder was to leave Pericles in
sole and undivided command of the democratic party. The
foreign policy of Pericles soon began to involve Athens in
troubles at home. He concluded alliances with Argos and
Thessaly, both states at variance with Sparta, and thereby
made a collision with the Lacedæmonian confederacy inevitable.
He gave still more direct offence to Corinth, one of the most
powerful members of that confederacy, by concluding a close
alliance with Megara. ... In Boeotia, too, he stirred up
enmity, by giving an active support to the democratic party in
that country. These provocations made a war inevitable. In 458
B. C. the storm burst. ... At the moment of the outbreak of
the first important naval war which she had to wage with a
Greek enemy since the formation of her empire, Athens took two
important steps. The first was destined to guard against the risk
of misfortunes by sea; it consisted in the transference from
Delos to Athens [dated by different authorities between 461
and 454 B. C.] of the central treasury of the confederacy. ...
{159}
It was not long before the Athenians came to regard the
treasury as their own, and to draw upon it for purely Attic
needs, which had no connection with the welfare of the other
confederates. ... The second important event of the year 458
B. C. was the commencement of the famous 'Long Walls' of
Athens [See LONG WALLS]. ... When they were finished Athens,
Peiræus, and Phalerum, formed the angles of a vast fortified
triangle, while the space between them, a considerable expanse
of open country, could be utilized as a place of refuge for
the population of Attica, and even for their flocks and
herds."
C. W. C. Oman, History of Greece, chapters 23-24.
ALSO IN
E. Abbott, Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens,
chapters 5-6.
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 17 (volume 3).
Plutarch, Cimon; Pericles.
ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.
Disastrous expedition to Egypt.
Attacks on the Peloponnesian Coast.
Recall of Cimon.
His last enterprise against the Persians.
The disputed Peace of Cimon or Callias.
Five years truce with Sparta.
"Inarus, king of some of the Libyan tribes on the western
border of Egypt, had excited an insurrection there against the
Persians [about 460 B. C.], and his authority was acknowledged
throughout the greater part of the country. Artaxerxes sent
his brother Achæmenes with a great army to quell this
rebellion. An Athenian armament of 200 galleys was lying at
the time off Cyprus, and Inarus sent to obtain its assistance.
The Athenian commanders, whether following their own
discretion, or after orders received from home, quitted
Cyprus, and having joined with the insurgents, enabled them to
defeat Achæmenes, who fell in the battle by the hand of
Inarus. They then sailed up the Nile to Memphis, where a body
of Persians, and some Egyptians, who still adhered to their
cause were in possession of one quarter of the city, called
White Castle. The rest was subject to Inarus, and there the
Athenians stationed themselves, and besieged the Persians. ...
Artaxerxes sent a Persian, named Megabazus, to Sparta, with a
sum of money, to be employed in bribing the principal Spartans
to use their influence, so as to engage their countrymen in an
expedition against Attica. Megabazus did not find the leading
Spartans unwilling to receive his money; but they seem to have
been unable to render him the service for which it was
offered. Ithome still held out: and Sparta had probably not
yet sufficiently either recovered her strength or restored
internal tranquility, to venture on the proposed invasion.
Some rumours of this negotiation may have reached Athens, and
have quickened the energy with which Pericles now urged the
completion of the long walls. ... But among his opponents
there was a faction who viewed the progress of this great work
in a different light from Cimon, and saw in it, not the means
of securing the independence of Athens, but a bulwark of the
hated commonalty. They too would have gladly seen an invading
army in Attica, which might assist them in destroying the work
and its authors." This party was accused of sympathy with the
Spartan expedition which came to the help of Doris against the
Phocians in 457 B. C., and which defeated the Athenians at
Tanagra (See GREECE: B. C. 458-456). In 455, "the Spartans
were reminded that they were also liable to be attacked at
home. An Athenian armament of 50 galleys, and, if we may trust
Diadorus, with 4,000 heavy armed troops on board, sailed round
Peloponnesus under Tolmides, burnt the Spartan arsenal at
Gythium, took a town named Chalcis belonging to the
Corinthians, and defeated the Sicyonians, who attempted to
oppose the landing of the troops. But the most important
advantage gained in the expedition was the capture of
Naupactus, which belonged to the Ozolian Locrians, and now
fell into the hands of the Athenians at a very seasonable
juncture. The third Messenian war had just come to a close.
The brave defenders of Ithome had obtained honourable terms.
... The besieged were permitted to quit Peloponnesus with
their families, on condition of being detained in slavery if
they ever returned. Tolmides now settled the homeless
wanderers in Naupactus. ... But these successes were
counterbalanced by a reverse which befell the arms of Athens
this same year in another quarter. After the defeat of
Achæmens, Artaxerxes, disappointed in his hopes of assistance
from Sparta, ... raised a great army, which he placed under
the command of an abler general, Megabyzus, son of Zopyrus.
Megabyzus defeated the insurgents and their allies, and forced
the Greeks to evacuate Memphis, and to take refuge in an
island of the Nile, named Prosopitis, which contained a town
called Byblus, where he besieged them for 18 months. At length
he resorted to the contrivance of turning the stream. ... The
Greek galleys were all left aground, and were fired by the
Athenians themselves, that they might not fall into the
enemy's hands. The Persians then marched into the island over
the dry bed of the river: the Egyptians in dismay abandoned
their allies, who were overpowered by numbers and almost all
destroyed. ... Inarus himself was betrayed into the hands of
the Persians and put to death. ... Egypt ... was again reduced
under the Persian yoke, except a part of the Delta, where
another pretender, named Amyrtæus, who assumed the title of
king ... maintained himself for several years against the
power of the Persian monarchy. But the misfortune of the
Athenians did not end with the destruction of the great fleet
and army which had been first employed in the war. They had
sent a squadron of 50 galleys to the relief of their
countrymen, which, arriving before the news of the recent
disaster had reached them, entered the Mendesian branch of the
Nile. They were here surprised by a combined attack of the
Persian land force and a Phoenician fleet, and but few escaped
to bear the mournful tidings to Athens. Yet even after this
calamity we find the Athenians, not suing for peace, but bent
on extending their power, and annoying their enemies." Early
in 454 they sent an expedition into Thessaly, to restore a
ruler named Orestes, who had been driven out. "But the
superiority of the Thessalians in cavalry checked all their
operations in the field; they failed in an attempt upon
Pharsalus, and were at length forced to retire without having
accomplished any of their ends. It was perhaps to soothe the
public disappointment that Pericles shortly afterwards
embarked at Pegæ with 1,000 men, and, coasting the south side
of the Corinthian gulf made a descent on the territory of
Sicyon, and routed the Sicyon force sent to oppose his landing.
{160}
He then ... laid siege to the town of Œniadæ. ... This
attempt, however, proved unsuccessful; and the general result
of the campaign seems not to have been on the whole
advantageous or encouraging. ... It seems to have been not
long after the events which have been just related that Cimon
was recalled from his exile; and the decree for that purpose
was moved by Pericles himself;--a fact which seems to intimate
that some change had taken place in the relations or the
temper of parties at Athens. ... The three years next
following Cimon's return, as we have fixed its date [B. C. 454
or 453], passed, happily for his contemporaries, without
affording any matter for the historian; and this pause was
followed by a five years' truce [with Sparta], in the course
of which Cimon embarked in his last expedition, and died near
the scene of his ancient glory. The pretender Amyrtæus had
solicited succour from the Athenians. ... Cimon was appointed
to the command of a fleet of 200 galleys, with which he sailed
to Cyprus, and sent a squadron of 60 to the assistance of
Amyrtæus, while he himself with the rest laid siege to Citium.
Here he was carried off by illness, or the consequences of a
wound; and the armament was soon after compelled, by want of
provisions, to raise the siege. But Cymon's spirit still
animated his countrymen, who, when they had sailed away with
his remains, fell in with a great fleet of Phoenician and
Cilician galleys, near the Cyprian Salamis, and, having
completely defeated them, followed up their naval victory with
another which they gained on shore, either over the troops
which had landed from the enemy's ships, or over a land force
by which they were supported. After this they were joined by
the squadron which had been sent to Egypt, and which returned,
it would appear, without having achieved any material object,
and all sailed home (B. C. 449). In after-times Cimon's
military renown was enhanced by the report of a peace
[sometimes called the Peace of Cimon, and sometimes the Peace
of Callias], which his victories had compelled the Persian
king to conclude on terms most humiliating to the monarchy.
Within less than a century after his death it was, if not
commonly believed, confidently asserted, that by this treaty,
negotiated, as it was supposed, by Callias, son of Hipponicus,
the Persians had agreed to abandon at least the military
occupation of Asia Minor, to the distance of three days
journey on foot, or one on horseback, from the coast, or,
according to another account, the whole peninsula west of the
Halys, and to abstain from passing the mouth of the Bosphorus
and the Chelidonian islands, on the coast of Lycia, or the
town of Phaselis, into the Western Sea. The mere silence of
Thucydides on so important a transaction would be enough to
render the whole account extremely suspicious."
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 17 (volume 3).
Mr. Grote accepts the Peace of Cimon as an historical fact;
Professor Curtius rejects it.
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 45 (volume 5).
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 3, chapter 2 (volume 2).
ATHENS: B. C. 458-456.
War for Megara with Corinth and Ægina.
Victories of Myronides.
Siege and conquest of Ægina.
Collision with the Spartans in Bœotia.
Defeat at Tanagra.
Overthrow of the Thebans.
Recovered Ascendency.
See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.
ATHENS: B. C. 449-445.
Hostile revolution in Bœotia.
Defeat at Coroneia.
Revolt of Eubœa and Megara.
The thirty years' truce.
Territorial losses.
Spartan recognition of the Delian Confederacy.
See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.
ATHENS: B. C. 445-431.
Supremacy of Pericles and the popular arts by which he
attained it.
The splendor of Athens and grandeur of the Athenian Empire
under his rule.
"The conclusion of peace left the Athenians to their
confederacy and their internal politics. ... After the death
of Cimon the oligarchical party at Athens had been led by
Thucydides, the son of Melesias, a man of high character and a
kinsman of Cimon. ... Hitherto the members had sat here or
there in the assembly as they pleased; now they were combined
into a single body, and sat in a special place. Such a
consolidation was doubtless needed if the party was to hold
its own against Pericles, who was rapidly carrying all before
him. For years past he had provided a subsistence for many of
the poorer citizens by means of his numerous colonies--no
fewer than 5,000 Athenians must have been sent out to the
'cleruchies' in the interval between 453 B. C. and 444 B. C.
The new system of juries [See DICASTERIA] had also been
established on the fall of the Areopagus, and the jurymen were
paid--a second source of income to the poor. Such measures
were beyond anything that the private liberality of
Cimon--splendid as it was--could achieve; and on Cimon's death
no other aristocrat came forward to aid his party with his
purse. Pericles did not stop here. Since the cessation of the
war with Persia there had been fewer drafts on the public
purse, and the contributions of the allies were accumulating
in the public treasury. A scrupulous man would have regarded
the surplus as the money of the allies. ... Pericles took
another view. He plainly told the Athenians that so long as
the city fulfilled the contract made with the allied cities,
and kept Persian vessels from their shores, the surplus was at
the disposal of Athens. Acting on this principle, he devoted a
part of it to the embellishment of the city. With the aid of
Pheidias, the sculptor, and Ictinus, the architect, a new
temple began to rise on the Acropolis in honour of Athena--the
celebrated Parthenon or 'Virgin's Chamber' [See PARTHENON].
... Other public buildings were also begun about this time.
Athens was in fact a vast workshop, in which employment was
found for a great number of citizens. Nor was this all. ...
For eight months of the year 60 ships were kept at sea with
crews on board, in order that there might be an ample supply
of practical seamen. ... Thus by direct or indirect means
Pericles made the state the paymaster of a vast number of
citizens, and the state was practically himself, with these
paid citizens at his back. At the same time the public
festivals of the city were enlarged and adorned with new
splendour. ... That all might attend the theatre in which the
plays were acted, Pericles provided that every citizen should
receive from the state a sum sufficient to pay the charge
demanded from the spectators by the lessee [See DIOBOLY]. We
may look on these measures as the arts of a demagogue. ... Or
we may say that Pericles was able to gratify his passion for
art at the expense of the Athenians and their allies.
{161}
Neither of these views is altogether untenable; and both are
far from including the whole truth. Pericles ... was, if we
please to say it, a demagogue and a connoisseur. But he was
something more. Looking at the whole evidence before us with
impartial eyes, we cannot refuse to acknowledge that he
cherished aspirations worthy of a great statesman. He
sincerely desired that every Athenian should owe to his city
the blessing of an education in all that was beautiful, and
the opportunity of a happy and useful life. ... The oligarchs
determined to pull down Pericles, if it were possible. ...
They proposed, in the winter of 445 B. C., that there should
be an ostracism in the city. The people agreed, and the usual
arrangements were made. But when the day came for decision, in
the spring of 444 B. C., the sentence fell, not on Pericles,
but on Thucydides. The sentence left no doubt about the
feeling of the Athenian people, and it was accepted as final.
Thucydides disappeared from Athens, and for the next fifteen
years Pericles was master of the city. ... While Athens was
active, organizing her confederacy and securing her
communication with the north, the Peloponnesians had allowed
the years to pass in apathy and inattention. At length they
awoke to a sense of the situation. It was clear that Athens
had abandoned all idea of war with Persia, and that the
confederacy of Delos was transformed into an Athenian empire,
of whose forces the great city was absolutely mistress. And
meanwhile in visible greatness Athens had become far the first
city in Greece."
E. Abbott, Pericles, chapters 10-11.
"A rapid glance will suffice to show the eminence which Athens
had attained over the other states of Greece. She was the head
of the Ionian League--the mistress of the Grecian seas; with
Sparta, the sole rival that could cope with her armies and
arrest her ambition, she had obtained a peace; Corinth was
Humbled--Ægina ruined--Megara had shrunk into her dependency
and garrison. The states of Bœotia had received their very
constitution from the hands of an Athenian general--the
democracies planted by Athens served to make liberty itself
subservient to her will, and involved in her safety. She had
remedied the sterility of her own soil by securing the rich
pastures of the neighbouring Eubœa. She had added the gold of
Thasos to the silver of Laurion, and established a footing in
Thessaly which was at once a fortress against the Asiatic arms
and a mart for Asiatic commerce. The fairest lands of the
opposite coast--the most powerful islands of the Grecian
seas--contributed to her treasury, or were almost legally
subjected to her revenge. ... In all Greece, Myronides was
perhaps the ablest general--Pericles ... was undoubtedly the
most highly educated, cautious and commanding statesman. ...
In actual possession of the tribute of her allies, Athens
acquired a new right to its collection and its management, and
while she devoted some of the treasures to the maintenance of
her strength, she began early to uphold the prerogative of
appropriating a part to the enhancement of her splendour. ...
It was now [about B. C. 444] resolved to make Athens also the
seat and centre of the judicial authority. The subject-allies
were compelled, if not on minor, at least on all important
cases, resort to Athenian courts of law for justice. And thus
Athens became, as it were, the metropolis of the allies. ...
Before the Persian war, and even scarcely before the time of
Cimon, Athens cannot be said to have eclipsed her neighbours
in the arts and sciences. She became the centre and capital of
the most polished communities of Greece, and she drew into a
focus all the Grecian intellect; she obtained from her
dependents the wealth to administer the arts, which universal
traffic and intercourse taught her to appreciate; and thus the
Odeon, and the Parthenon, and the Propylæa arose. During the
same administration, the fortifications were completed, and a
third wall, parallel and near to that uniting Piræus with
Athens, consummated the works of Themistocles and Cimon, and
preserved the communication between the two-fold city, even
should the outer walls fall into the hands of an enemy."
E. G. Bulwer-Lytton, Athens: Its Rise and Fall, book 4,
chapter 5, book 5, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
W. W. Lloyd, The Age of Pericles,
Plutarch, Pericles.
ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.
The Age of Pericles: Art.
"The Greeks ... were industrious, commercial, sensitive to
physical and moral beauty, eager for discussion and
controversy; they were proud of their humanity, and happy in
the possession of their poets, their historians, their orators
and artists. It is singular, in the history of nations, to
meet with a people distinguished at once by mercantile
aptitude, and by an exquisite feeling and sympathy for works
of art; to see the vanity of wealth compatible with a nice
discernment for the true principles of taste; to behold a
nation, inconstant in ideas; inconceivably fickle in
prejudices, worshipping a man one day and proscribing him the
next, yet at the same time progressing with unheard-of
rapidity; within the space of a few years traversing all
systems of philosophy, all forms of government, laying the
foundations of all sciences, making war on all its neighbors,
yet, in the midst of this chaos of ideas, systems, and
passions, developing art steadily and with calm intelligence,
giving to it novelty, originality, and beauty, while
preserving it pure from the aberrations and caprices of what
we now call fashion. At the time of the battle of Salamis, 480
B. C., Athens had been destroyed, its territory ravaged, and
the Athenians had nothing left but their ships; yet so great
was the activity of this commercial but artistic people, that,
only twenty years afterwards, they had built the Parthenon."
E. E. Viollet-le-Duc, Discourses on Architecture, page 65.
ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.
The Age of Pericles: Domestic life.
The Athenian house.
"For any one coming from Asia it seemed as if in entering
Athens he was coming into an ant's nest. Possessing, at the
epoch of its greatest power, the three ports of Munychia,
Phalerum and the Piræus, it covered a district whose
circumference measured two hundred stadia (twenty-four miles).
But it was around the Acropolis that the houses were crowded
together and the population always in activity. There wagons
were passing to and fro, filled with merchandise from the
ports or conveying it thither. The streets and public places
in which people passed their lives presented a busy and noisy
scene. Strangers, who came to buy or to sell, were continually
entering or leaving the shops and places of manufacture, and
slaves were carrying messages or burdens.
{162}
Women as well as men were to be seen in the streets,
going to the markets, the public games and the meetings of
corporate bodies. From the earliest hours of the day large
numbers of peasants might be seen bringing in vegetables,
fruit and poultry, and crying their wares in the streets.
Houses of the higher class occupied the second zone; they
generally possessed a garden and sometimes outbuildings of
considerable extent. Around them were to be seen clients and
parasites, waiting for the hour when the master should make
his appearance; and whiling away the time discussing the news
of the day, repeating the rumours, true or false, that were
current in the city; getting the slaves to talk, and laughing
among themselves at the strangers that happened to be passing,
or addressing them with a view to make fun of their accent,
garb or dress. The house of Chremylus, recently built in that
second zone, was a subject of remark for all the idlers.

Chremylus, who had lately become wealthy by means of commerce,
and of certain transactions of more or less creditable
character in the colonies, was an object of envy and criticism
to most people, and of admiration for some who did justice to
his intelligence and energy. He enjoyed a certain degree of
influence in the public assemblies--thanks to his liberality;
while he took care to secure the good graces of the archons
and to enrich the temples."
[Image]
Plan Of Athenian House.
"We have [in the accompanying figure] the ground-plan of the
residence of this Athenian citizen. The entrance x opens on
the public road. The site is bounded on either side by narrow
streets. This entrance x opens on the court O, which is
surrounded by porticos. At A is the porter's lodge, and at B
the rooms for the slaves, with kitchen at C and latrines at a.
From this first court: in the centre of which is a small
fountain with a basin which receives the rain water, the
passage D leads into the inner court E; which is larger and is
likewise surrounded by porticos. At G is the reception room,
at H the strong room for valuables, and at S the private
altar. At F is a large storeroom containing provisions and
wine; and at I the small dining room (triclinium); the
cooking-room for the family being at J with latrines at b. The
large triclinium is at K. The passage m admits to the
gynæceum, containing the bedrooms P along the portico M, a
common room for the women, with its small enclosed garden, and
closets at e. The quarters for visitors are entered by the
passage t, and consist of bedrooms V, a portico T, a small
garden and closets f. At d is an opening into the lane for the
servants, when required. The gardens extend in the direction
Z. This house is situated on the slopes of the hill which to
the south-west looks towards the Acropolis; thus it is
sheltered from the violent winds which sometimes blow from
this quarter. From the large dining-hall and from the terrace
L, which adjoins it, there is a charming prospect; for, above
the trees of the garden is seen the city overlooked by the
Acropolis, and towards the left the hill of the Areopagus.
From this terrace L there is a descent to the garden by about
twelve steps. The position was chosen with a view to
protection against the sun's heat and the troublesome winds.
From the portico of the gynæceum are seen the hills extending
towards the north, covered with houses surrounded by
olive-trees; and in the background Mount Pentelicus. ... In
the dwelling of Chremylus the various departments were
arranged at the proprietor's discretion, and the architect
only conformed to his instructions. Thus the front part of the
house is assigned to the external relations of the owner. In
this court O assemble the agents or factors who come to give
an account of the commissions they have executed, or to
receive orders. If the master wishes to speak to any of them,
he takes him into his reception room; his bedchamber being at
R, he can easily repair to that reception-room or to the
gynæceum reserved for the women and younger children. If he
entertains friends, they have their separate apartments, which
are shut off, not being in communication with the first court
except through the passage t. All that part of the habitation
which is beyond the wide entrance-hall D is consecrated to
domestic life; and only the intimate friends of the family are
admitted into the second court; for example, if they are
invited to a banquet,--which is held in the great hall K. The
master usually takes his meals with his wife and one or two
members of his family who live in the house, in the smaller
room I, the couches of which will hold six persons; whereas
fifteen guests can be accommodated on the couches of the great
hall K. Chremylus has spared nothing to render his house one
of the most sumptuous in the city. The columns of Pentelican
marble support architraves of wood, surmounted by friezes and
cornices overlaid with stucco and ornamented with delicate
painting. Everywhere the walls are coated with fine smooth
plaster, adorned with paintings; and the ceilings are of
timber artistically wrought and coloured."
E. Viollet-le-Duc, The Habitations of Man in all Ages,
chapter 17.
{163}
ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.
The Age of Pericles: Law and its Administration.
Contrast with the Romans.
"It is remarkable ... that the 'equality' of laws on which the
Greek democracies prided themselves--that equality which, in
the beautiful drinking song of Callistratus, Harmodius and
Aristogiton are said to have given to Athens--had little in
common with the 'equity' of the Romans. The first was an equal
administration of civil laws among the citizens, however
limited the class of citizens might be; the last implied the
applicability of a law, which was not civil law, to a class
which did not necessarily consist of citizens. The first
excluded a despot; the last included foreigners, and for some
purposes slaves. ... There are two special dangers to which
law, and society which is held together by law, appear to be
liable in their infancy. One of them is that law may be too
rapidly developed. This occurred with the codes of the more
progressive Greek communities, which disembarrassed themselves
with astonishing facility from cumbrous forms of procedure and
needless terms of art, and soon ceased to attach any
superstitious value to rigid rules and prescriptions. It was
not for the ultimate advantage of mankind that they did so,
though the immediate benefit conferred on their citizens may
have been considerable. One of the rarest qualities of
national character is the capacity for applying and working
out the law, as such, at the cost of constant miscarriages of
abstract justice, without at the same time losing the hope or
the wish that law may be conformed to a higher ideal. The
Greek intellect, with all its nobility and elasticity, was
quite unable to confine itself within the strait waistcoat of
a legal formula; and, if we may judge them by the popular
courts of Athens, of whose working we possess accurate
knowledge, the Greek tribunals exhibited the strongest
tendency to confound law and fact. The remains of the Orators
and the forensic commonplaces preserved by Aristotle in his
Treatise on Rhetoric, show that questions of pure law were
constantly argued on every consideration which could possibly
influence the mind of the judges. No durable system of
jurisprudence could be produced in this way. A community which
never hesitated to relax rules of written law whenever they
stood in the way of an ideally perfect decision on the facts
of particular cases, would only, if it bequeathed any body of
judicial principles to posterity, bequeath one consisting of
the ideas of right and wrong which happened to be prevalent at
the time. Such jurisprudence would contain no framework to
which the more advanced conceptions of subsequent ages could
be fitted. It would amount at best to a philosophy, marked
with the imperfections of the civilisation under which it grew
up. ... The other liability to which the infancy of society is
exposed has prevented or arrested the progress of far the
greater part of mankind. The rigidity of primitive law,
arising chiefly from its earlier association and
identification with religion, has chained down the mass of the
human race to those views of life and conduct which they
entertained at the time when their usages were first
consolidated into a systematic form. There were one or two
races exempted by a marvellous fate from this calamity, and
grafts from these stocks have fertilised a few modern
societies; but it is still true that, over the larger part of
the world, the perfection of law has always been considered as
consisting in adherence to the ground plan supposed to have
been marked out by the original legislator. If intellect has
in such cases been exercised on jurisprudence, it has
uniformly prided itself on the subtle perversity of the
conclusions it could build on ancient texts without
discoverable departure from their literal tenour. I know no
reason why the law of the Romans should be superior to the
laws of the Hindoos, unless the theory of Natural Law had
given it a type of excellence different from the usual one."
H. S. Maine, Ancient Law, ch, 3-4.
"But both the Greek and the English trial by jury were at one
time the great political safeguard against state oppression
and injustice; and, owing to this origin, free nations become
so attached to it that they are blind to its defects. And just
as Ireland would now benefit beyond conception by the
abolition of the jury system, so the secured Athenian (or any
other) democracy would have thriven better had its laws been
administered by courts of skilled judges. For these large
bodies of average citizens, who, by the way, were not like our
jurymen, unwilling occupants of the jury-box, but who made it
a paid business and an amusement, did not regard the letter of
the law. They allowed actions barred by the reasonable limits
of time; they allowed arguments totally beside the question,
though this too was illegal, for there was no competent judge
to draw the line; they allowed hearsay evidence, though that
too was against the law; indeed the evidence produced in most
of the speeches is of the loosest and poorest kind. Worse than
all, there were no proper records kept of their decisions, and
witnesses were called in to swear what had been the past
decisions of a jury sitting in the same city, and under the
same procedure. This is the more remarkable, as there were
state archives, in which the decrees of the popular assembly
were kept. ... There is a most extraordinary speech of Lysias
against a man called Nichomachus, who was appointed to
transcribe the laws of Solon in four months, but who kept them
in his possession for six years, and is accused of having so
falsified them as to have substituted himself for Solon. Hence
there can have been no recognized duplicate extant, or such a
thing could not be attempted. So again, in the Trapeziticus of
Isocrates, it is mentioned as a well known fact, that a
certain Pythodorus was convicted of tampering with state
documents, signed and sealed by the magistrates, and deposited
in the Acropolis. All these things meet us in every turn in
the court speeches of the Attic orators. We are amazed at
seeing relationships proved in will cases by a man coming in
and swearing that such a man's father had told him that his
brother was married to such a woman, of such a house. We find
the most libellous charges brought against opponents on
matters totally beside the question at issue, and even formal
evidence of general bad character admitted. We find some
speakers in consequence treating the jury with a sort of
mingled deference and contempt which is amusing. 'On the
former trial of this case,' they say, 'my opponent managed to
tell you many well devised lies; of course you were deceived,
how could it be otherwise, and you made a false decision;' or
else, 'You were so puzzled that you got at variance with one
another, you voted at sixes and sevens, and by a small
majority you came to an absurd decision.'
{164}
'But I think you know well,' says Isocrates,
'that the city has often repented so bitterly ere this for
decisions made in passion and without evidence, as to desire
after no long interval to punish those who misled it, and to
wish those who had been calumniated were more than restored to
their former prosperity. Keeping these facts before you, you
ought not to be hasty in believing the prosecutors, nor to
hear the defendants with interruption and ill temper. For it
is a shame to have the character of being the gentlest and
most humane of the Greeks in other respects, and yet to act
contrary to this reputation in the trials which take place
here. It is a shame that in other cities, when a human life is
at stake, a considerable majority of votes is required for
conviction, but that among you those in danger do not even get
an equal chance with their false accusers. You swear indeed
once a year that you will attend to both plaintiff and
defendant, but in the interval only keep your oath so far as
to accept whatever the accusers say, but you sometimes will
not let those who are trying to refute them utter even a
single word. You think those cities uninhabitable, in which
citizens are executed without trial, and forget that those who
do not give both sides a fair hearing are doing the very same
thing.'"
J. P. Mahaffy, Social Life in Greece, chapter 13.
ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.
The Age of Pericles: Political life.
The democracy.
"The real life of Athens lasted at the most for 200 years: and
yet there are moments in which all that we have won by the
toils of so many generations seems as if it would be felt to
be but a small thing beside a single hour of Periklês. The
Democracy of Athens was in truth the noblest fruit of that
self-developing power of the Greek mind which worked every
possession of the common heritage into some new and more
brilliant shape, but which learned nothing, nothing of all
that formed its real life and its real glory, from the
Barbarians of the outer world. Men tell us that Greece learned
this or that mechanical invention from Phœnicia or Egypt or
Assyria. Be it so; but stand in the Pnyx; listen to the
contending orators; listen to the ambassadors of distant
cities; listen to each side as it is fairly hearkened to, and
see the matter in hand decided by the peaceful vote of
thousands--here at least of a truth is something which Athens
did not learn from any Assyrian despot or from any Egyptian
priest. And we, children of the common stock, sharers in the
common heritage, as we see man, Aryan man, in the full growth
of his noblest type, we may feel a thrill as we think that
Kleisthenês and Periklês were, after all, men of our own
blood--as we think that the institutions which grew up under
their hands and the institutions under which we ourselves are
living are alike branches sprung from one stock, portions of
one inheritance in which Athens and England have an equal
right. In the Athenian Democracy we see a popular constitution
taking the form which was natural for such a constitution to
take when it was able to run its natural course in a
common-wealth which consisted only of a single city. Wherever
the Assembly really remains, in truth as well as in name, an
Assembly of the whole people in their own persons, it must in
its own nature be sovereign. It must, in the nature of things,
delegate more or less of power to magistrates and generals;
but such power will be simply delegated. Their authority will
be a mere trust from the sovereign body, and to that sovereign
body they will be responsible for its exercise. That is to
say, one of the original elements of the State, the King or
chief, now represented by the elective magistracy, will lose
its independent powers, and will sink into a body who have
only to carry out the will of the sovereign Assembly. So with
another of the original elements, the Council. This body too
loses its independent being; it has no ruling or checking
power; it becomes a mere Committee of the Assembly, chosen or
appointed by lot to put measures into shape for more easy
discussion in the sovereign body. As society becomes more
advanced and complicated, the judicial power can no longer be
exercised by the Assembly itself, while it would be against
every democratic instinct to leave it in the arbitrary power
of individual magistrates. Other Committees of the Assembly,
Juries on a gigantic scale, with a presiding magistrate as
chairman rather than as Judge, are therefore set apart to
decide causes and to sit in judgment on offenders. Such is
pure Democracy, the government of the whole people and not of
a part of it only, as carried out in its full perfection in a
single city. It is a form of government which works up the
faculties of man to a higher pitch than any other; it is the
form of government which gives the freest scope to the inborn
genius of the whole community and of every member of it. Its
weak point is that it works up the faculties of man to a pitch
so high that it can hardly be lasting, that its ordinary life
needs an enthusiasm, a devotion too highly strung to be likely
to live through many generations. Athens in the days of her
glory, the Athens of Periklês, was truly 'the roof and crown
of things;' her democracy raised a greater number of human
beings to a higher level than any government before or since;
it gave freer play than any government before or since to the
personal gifts of the foremost of mankind. But against the few
years of Athenian glory we must set the long ages of Athenian
decline. Against the city where Periklês was General we must
set the city where Hadrian was Archon. On the Assemblies of
other Grecian cities it is hardly needful to dwell. Our
knowledge of their practical working is slight. We have one
picture of a debate in the popular Assembly of Sparta, an
Assembly none the less popular in its internal constitution
because it was the assembly of what, as regarded the excluded
classes of the State, was a narrow oligarchy. We see that
there, as might be looked for, the chiefs of the State, the
Kings, and yet more the Ephors, spoke with a degree of
official, as distinguished from personal, authority which fell
to the lot of no man in the Assembly of Athens. Periklês
reigned supreme, not because he was one of Ten Generals, but
because he was Periklês. ... In the Ekklêsia which listened to
Periklês and Dêmosthenes we feel almost as much at home as in
an institution of our own land and our own times. At least we
ought to feel at home there; for we have the full materials
for calling up the political life of Athens in all its
fullness, and within our own times one of the greatest minds
of our own or of any age has given its full strength to clear
away the mists of error and calumny which so long shrouded the
parent state of justice and freedom.
{165}
Among the contemporaries and countrymen of Mr. Grote it is
shame indeed if men fail to see in the great Democracy the
first state which taught mankind that the voice of persuasion
could be stronger than a despot's will, the first which taught
that disputes could be settled by a free debate and a free
vote which in other lands could have been decided only by the
banishment or massacre of the weaker side. ... It must be
constantly borne in mind that the true difference between an
aristocratic and a democratic government, as those words were
understood in the politics of old Greece, lies in this. In the
Democracy all citizens, all who enjoy civil rights, enjoy also
political rights. In the aristocracy political rights belong
to only a part of those who enjoy civil rights. But, in either
case, the highest authority of the State is the general
Assembly of the whole ruling body, whether that ruling body be
the whole people or only a part of it. ... The slaves and
strangers who were shut out at Athens were, according to Greek
ideas, no Athenians; but every Athenian had his place in the
sovereign assembly of Athens, while every Corinthian had not
his place in the sovereign assembly of Corinth. But the
aristocratic and the democratic commonwealth both agreed in
placing the final authority of the State in the general
Assembly of all who enjoy the highest franchise. ... The
people, of its own will, placed at its head men of the same
class as those who in the earlier state of things had ruled it
against its will. Periklês, Nikias, Alkibiadês, were men
widely differing in character, widely differing in their
relations to the popular government. But all alike were men of
ancient birth, who, as men of ancient birth, found their way,
almost as a matter of course, to those high places of the
State to which Kleôn found his way only by a strange freak of
fortune. At Rome we find quite another story. There, no less
than at Athens, the moral influence of nobility survived its
legal privileges; but, more than this, the legal privileges of
the elder nobility were never wholly swept away, and the
inherent feeling of respect for illustrious birth called into
being a younger nobility by its side. At Athens one stage of
reform placed a distinction of wealth instead of a distinction
of birth: another stage swept away the distinction of wealth
also. But the reform, at each of its stages, was general; it
affected all offices alike, save those sacred offices which
still remained the special heritage of certain sacred
families. ... In an aristocratic commonwealth there is no room
for Periklês; there is no room for the people that hearkened
to Periklês; but in men of the second order, skilful
conservative administrators, men able to work the system which
they find established, no form of government is so fertile.
... But everywhere we learn the same lesson, the inconsistency
of commonwealths which boast themselves of their own freedom
and exalt themselves at the cost of the freedom of others."
E. A. Freeman, Comparative Politics, lecture 5-6.
"Dêmos was himself King, Minister, and Parliament. He had his
smaller officials to carry out the necessary details of public
business, but he was most undoubtedly his own First Lord of
the Treasury, his own Foreign Secretary, his own Secretary for
the Colonies. He himself kept up a personal correspondence
both with foreign potentates and with his own officers on
foreign service; the 'despatches' of Nikias and the 'notes' of
Philip were alike addressed to no officer short of the
sovereign himself; he gave personal audience to the
ambassadors of other states, and clothed his own with just so
great or so small a share as he deemed good of his own
boundless authority. He had no need to entrust the care of his
thousand dependencies to the mysterious working of a Foreign
Office; he himself sat in judgment upon Mitylenaian rebels; he
himself settled the allotment of lands at Chalkis or
Amphipolis; he decreed by his own wisdom what duties should be
levied at the Sound of Byzantion; he even ventured on a task
of which two-and-twenty ages have not lessened the difficulty,
and undertook, without the help of a Lord High Commissioner,
to adjust the relations and compose the seditions even of
Korkyra and Zakynthos. He was his own Lord High Chancellor,
his own Lord Primate, his own Commander-in-Chief. He listened
to the arguments of Kleôn on behalf of a measure, and to the
arguments of Nikias against it, and he ended by bidding Nikias
to go and carry out the proposal which he had denounced as
extravagant or unjust. He listened with approval to his own
'explanations;' he passed votes of confidence in his own
policy; he advised himself to give his own royal assent to the
bills which he had himself passed, without the form of a
second or third reading, or the vain ceremony of moving that
the Prytaneis do leave their chairs. ... We suspect that the
average Athenian citizen was, in political intelligence, above
the average English Member of Parliament. It was this
concentration of all power in an aggregate of which every
citizen formed a part, which is the distinguishing
characteristic of true Greek democracy. Florence had nothing
like it; there has been nothing like it in the modern world:
the few pure democracies which have lingered on to our own day
have never had such mighty questions laid before them, and
have never had such statesmen and orators to lead them. The
great Democracy has had no fellow; but the political lessons
which it teaches are none the less lessons for all time and
for every land and people."
E. A. Freeman, Historical Essays (volume 2): The Athenian
Democracy.
"The individual freedom which was enjoyed at Athens and which
is extolled by Pericles was plainly an exception to the common
usage of Greece, and is so regarded in the Funeral Speech. The
word 'freedom,' it should be remembered, bore an ambiguous
meaning. It denoted on the one hand political
independence,--the exercise of sovereign power by the State
and of political rights by the citizens. In this sense every
Greek citizen could claim it as his birthright. Even the
Spartans could tell the Persian Hydarnes that he had not, like
them, tasted of freedom, and did not know whether it was sweet
or not. But the word also denoted personal and social
liberty,--freedom from the excessive restraints of law, the
absence of a tyrannous public opinion and of intolerance
between man and man. Pericles claims for Athens 'freedom' in
this double sense. But freedom so far as it implies the
absence of legal interference in the private concerns of life
was but little known except at Athens."
S. H. Butcher, Some Aspects of Greek Genius,
pages 70-71.
{166}
"To Athens ... we look ... for an answer to the question, What
does history teach in regard to the virtue of a purely
democratic government? And here we may safely say that, under
favourable circumstances, there is no form of government
which, while it lasts, has such a virtue to give scope to a
vigorous growth and luxuriant fruitage of various manhood as a
pure democracy. ... But it does not follow that, though in
this regard it has not been surpassed by any other form of
government, it is therefore absolutely the best of all forms
of government. ... Neither, on the other hand, does it follow
from the shortness of the bright reign of Athenian
democracy--not more than 200 years from Clisthenes to the
Macedonians--that all democracies are short-lived, and must
pay, like dissipated young gentlemen, with premature decay for
the feverish abuse of their vital force. Possible no doubt it
is, that if the power of what we may call a sort of Athenian
Second Chamber, the Areiopagus, instead of being weakened as
it was by Aristides and Pericles, had been built up according
to the idea of Æschylus and the intelligent aristocrats of his
day, such a body, armed, like our House of Lords, with an
effective negative on all outbursts of popular rashness, might
have prevented the ambition of the Athenians from launching on
that famous Syracusan expedition which exhausted their force
and maimed their action for the future. But the lesson taught
by the short-lived glory of Athens, and its subjugation under
the rough foot of the astute Macedonian, is not that
democracies, under the influence of faction, and, it may be,
not free from venality, will sell their liberties to a strong
neighbour--for aristocratic Poland did this in a much more
blushless way than democratic Greece--but that any loose
aggregate of independent States, given more to quarrel amongst
themselves than to unite against a common enemy, whether
democratic, or aristocratic, or monarchical in their form of
government, cannot in the long run maintain their ground
against the firm policy and the well-massed force of a strong
monarchy. Athens was blotted out from the map of free peoples
at Chæronea, not because the Athenian people had too much
freedom, but because the Greek States had too little unity.
They were used by Philip exactly in the same way that Napoleon
used the German States at the commencement of the present
century."
J. S. Blackie, What does History Teach? pages 28-31.
"In Herodotus you have the beginning of the age of discussion.
... The discourses on democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy,
which he puts into the mouth of the Persian conspirators when
the monarchy was vacant, have justly been called absurd, as
speeches supposed to have been spoken by those persons. No
Asiatic ever thought of such things. You might as well imagine
Saul or David speaking them as those to whom Herodotus
attributes them. They are Greek speeches, full of free Greek
discussions, and suggested by the experience, already
considerable, of the Greeks in the results of discussion. The
age of debate is beginning, and even Herodotus, the least of a
wrangler of any man, and the most of a sweet and simple
narrator, felt the effect. When we come to Thucydides, the
results of discussion are as full as they have ever been; his
light is pure, 'dry light,' free from the 'humours' of habit,
and purged from consecrated usage. As Grote's history often
reads like a report to Parliament, so half Thucydides reads
like a speech, or materials for a speech, in the Athenian
Assembly."
W. Bagehot, Physics and Politics, pages 170-171.
ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.
New settlements of Klerouchoi.
The founding of Amphipolis.--
Revolt and subjugation of Samos.
"The great aim of Perikles was to strengthen the power of
Athens over the whole area occupied by her confederacy. The
establishment of settlers or Klerouchoi [see KLERUCHS]. who
retained their rights as Athenian citizens, had answered so
well in the Lelantian plain of Euboia that it was obviously
good policy to extend the system. The territory of Hestiaia in
the north of Euboia and the islands of Lemnos, Imbros, and
Skyros, were thus occupied; and Perikles himself led a body of
settlers to the Thrakian Chersonesos where he repaired the old
wall at the neck of the peninsula, and even to Sinope which
now became a member of the Athenian alliance. A generation had
passed from the time when Athens lost 10,000 citizens in the
attempt to found a colony at the mouth of the Strymon. The
task was now undertaken successfully by Hagnon, and the city
came into existence which was to be the cause of disaster to
the historian Thucydides and to witness the death of Brasidas
and of Kleon [see AMPHIPOLIS]. ... Two years before the
founding of Amphipolis, Samos revolted from Athens. ... In
this revolt of Samos the overt action comes from the oligarchs
who had seized upon the Ionian town of Priene, and defeated
the Milesians who opposed them. The latter appealed to the
Athenians, and received not only their aid but that of the
Samian demos. The latter now became the ruling body in the
island, fifty men and fifty boys being taken from the
oligarchic families and placed as hostages in Lemnos, which,
as we have seen, was now wholly occupied by Athenian
Klerouchoi. But the Samian exiles (for many had fled rather
than live under a democracy) entered into covenant with
Pissouthnes, the Sardian satrap, crossed over to Samos and
seized the chief men of the demos, then falling on Lemnos
succeeded in stealing away the hostages; and, having handed
over to Pissouthnes the Athenian garrison at Samos, made ready
for an expedition against Miletos. The tidings that Byzantion
had joined in this last revolt left to the Athenians no room
to doubt the gravity of the crisis. A fleet of sixty ships was
dispatched to Samos under Perikles and nine other generals, of
whom the poet Sophokles is said to have been one. Of these
ships sixteen were sent, some to gather the allies, others to
watch for the Phenician fleet which they believed to be off
the Karian coast advancing to the aid of the Samian oligarchs.
With the remainder Perikles did not hesitate to engage the
Samian fleet of seventy ships which he encountered on its
return from Miletos off the island of Tragia. The Athenians
gained the day; and Samos was blockaded by land and sea. But
no sooner had Perikles sailed with sixty ships to meet the
Phenician fleet, than the Samians, making a vigorous sally,
broke the lines of the besiegers and for fourteen days
remained masters of the sea.
{167}
The return of Perikles changed the face of things. Soon after
the resumption of the siege the arrival of sixty fresh ships
from Athens under five Strategoi in two detachments, with
thirty from Chios and Lesbos, damped the energy of the Samian
oligarchs; and an unsuccessful effort at sea was followed by
their submission in the ninth month after the beginning of the
revolt, the terms being that they should raze their walls,
give hostages, surrender their ships, and pay the expenses of
the war. Following their example, the Byzantines also made
their peace with Athens. The Phenician fleet never came. ...
The Athenians escaped at the same time a far greater danger
nearer home. The Samians, like the men of Thasos, had applied
for aid to the Spartans, who, no longer pressed by the Helot
war, summoned a congress of their allies to discuss the
question. For the truce which had still five-and-twenty years
to run Sparta cared nothing: but she encountered an opposition
from the Corinthians which perhaps she now scarcely expected.
... The Spartans were compelled to give way; and there can be
no doubt that when some years later the Corinthians claimed
the gratitude of the Athenians for this decision, they took
credit for an act of good service singularly opportune. Had
they voted as Sparta wished, Athens might by the extension of
revolt amongst her allied cities have been reduced now to the
condition to which, in consequence perhaps of this respite,
she was not brought until the lifetime of a generation had
been spent in desperate warfare."
G. W. Cox, History of Greece, book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).
ATHENS: B. C. 431.
Beginning of the Peloponnesian War.
Its Causes.
"In B. C. 431 the war broke out between Athens and the
Peloponnesian League, which, after twenty-seven years, ended
in the ruin of the Athenian empire. It began through a quarrel
between Corinth and Kerkyra, in which Athens assisted Kerkyra.
A congress was held at Sparta; Corinth and other States
complained of the conduct of Athens, and war was decided on.
The real cause of the war was that Sparta and its allies were
jealous of the great power that Athens had gained [see GREECE:
B. C. 435-132 and 432-431]. A far greater number of Greek
States were engaged in this war than had ever been engaged in
a single undertaking before. States that had taken no part in
the Persian war were now fighting on one side or the other.
Sparta was an oligarchy, and the friend of the nobles
everywhere; Athens was a democracy, and the friend of the
common people; so that the war was to some extent a struggle
between these classes all over Greece, and often within the
same city walls the nobles and the people attacked one
another, the nobles being for Sparta and the people for
Athens. On the side of Sparta, when the war began, there was
all Peloponnesus except Argos and Achæa, and also the
oligarchical Bœotian League under Thebes besides Phokis,
Lokris, and other States west of them. They were very strong
by land, but the Corinthians alone had a good fleet. Later on
we shall see the powerful State of Syracuse with its navy,
acting with Sparta. On the side of Athens there were almost
all the Ægæan islands, and a great number of the Ægæan coast
towns as well as Kerkyra and certain States in the west of
Greece. The Athenians had also made alliance with Sitalkes,
the barbarian king of the interior of Thrace. Athens was far
stronger by sea than Sparta, but had not such a strong land
army. On the other hand it had a large treasure, and a system
of taxes, while the Spartan League had little or no money."
C. A. Fyffe, History of Greece (History Primers), page 84.
The Ionian cities, called "allies" of Athens, were subjects in
reality, and held in subjection by tyrannical measures which
made the yoke odious, as is plainly explained by Xenophon, who
says: "Some person might say, that it is a great support to
the Athenians that their allies should be in a condition to
contribute money to them. To the plebeians, however, it seems
to be of much greater advantage that every individual of the
Athenians should get some of the property of the allies, and
that the allies themselves should have only so much as to
enable them to live and to till the ground, so that they may
not be in a condition to form conspiracies. The people of
Athens seem also to have acted injudiciously in this respect,
that they oblige their allies to make voyages to Athens for
the decision of their lawsuits. But the Athenians consider
only, on the other hand, what benefits to the state of Athens
are attendant on this practice; in the first place they
receive their dues throughout the year from the prytaneia; in
the next place, they manage the government of the allied
states while sitting at home, and without sending out ships;
they also support suitors of the lower orders, and ruin those
of an opposite character in their courts of law; but if each
state had its own courts, they would, as being hostile to the
Athenians, be the ruin of those who were most favourable to
the people of Athens. In addition to these advantages, the
Athenian people have the following profits from the courts of
justice for the allies being at Athens; first of all the duty
of the hundredth on what is landed at the Peiræeus affords a
greater revenue to the city; next, whoever has a lodging-house
makes more money by it, as well as whoever has cattle or
slaves for hire; and the heralds, too, are benefited by the
visits of the allies to the city. Besides, if the allies did
not come to Athens for law, they would honour only such of the
Athenians as were sent over the sea to them, as generals, and
captains of vessels, and ambassadors; but now every individual
of the allies is obliged to flatter the people of Athens,
knowing that on going to Athens he must gain or lose his cause
according to the decision, not of other judges, but of the
people, as is the law of Athens; and he is compelled, too, to
use supplication before the court, and, as anyone of the
people enters, to take him by the hand. By these means the
allies are in consequence rendered much more the slaves of the
Athenian people."
Xenophon, On the Athenian Government (Minor Works,
translated by Reverend J. S. Watson), page 235.
The revolt of these coerced and hostile "allies," upon the
outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, was inevitable.--The
prominent events of the Peloponnesian war, in which most of
the Greek States were involved, are properly narrated in their
connection with Greek history at large (see GREECE: B. C.
431-429, and after). In this place it will only be necessary
to take account of the consequences of the war as they
affected the remarkable city and people whose superiority had
occasioned it by challenging and somewhat offensively
provoking the jealousy of their neighbors.
{168}
ATHENS: B. C. 431.
Peloponnesian invasions of Attica.
Siege of Athens.
"While the Peloponnesians were gathering at the Isthmus, and
were still on their way, but before they entered Attica,
Pericles, the son of Xanthippus, who was one of the ten
Athenian generals, ... repeated [to the Athenians] his
previous advice; they must prepare for war and bring their
property from the country into the city; they must defend
their walls but not go out to battle; they should also equip
for service the fleet in which lay their strength. ... The
citizens were persuaded, and brought into the city their
children and wives, their household goods, and even the
wood-work of their houses, which they took down. Their flocks
and beasts of burden they conveyed to Euboea and the adjacent
islands. The removal of the inhabitants was painful; for the
Athenians had always been accustomed to reside in the country.
Such a life had been characteristic of them more than of any
other Hellenic people, from very early times. ... When they
came to Athens, only a few of them had houses or could find
homes among friends or kindred. The majority took up their
abode in the vacant spaces of the city, and in the temples and
shrines of heroes. ... Many also established themselves in the
turrets of the walls, or in any other place which they could
find; for the city could not contain them when they first came
in. But afterwards they divided among them the Long Walls and
the greater part of the Piraeus. At the same time the
Athenians applied themselves vigorously to the war, summoning
their allies, and preparing an expedition of 100 ships against
the Peloponnese. While they were thus engaged, the
Peloponnesian army was advancing: it arrived first of all at
Oenoe," where Archidamus, the Spartan king, wasted much time
in a fruitless siege and assault. "At last they marched on,
and about the eightieth day after the entry of the Thebans
into Plataea, in the middle of the summer, when the corn was
in full ear, invaded Attica: ... They encamped and ravaged,
first of all, Eleusis and the plain of Thria. ... At Acharnae
they encamped, and remained there a considerable time,
ravaging the country." It was the expectation of Archidamus
that the Athenians would be provoked to come out and meet him
in the open field; and that, indeed, they were eager to do;
but the prudence of their great leader held them back. "The
people were furious with Pericles, and, forgetting all his
previous warnings, they abused him for not leading them to
battle." But he was vindicated by the result. "The
Peloponnesians remained in Attica as long as their provisions
lasted, and then, taking a new route, retired through Boeotia.
... On their return to Peloponnesus the troops dispersed to
their several cities." Meantime the Athenian and allied fleets
were ravaging the Peloponnesian coast. "In the same summer [B.
C. 431] the Athenians expelled the Aeginetans and their
families from Aegina, alleging that they had been the main
cause of the war. ... The Lacedaemonians gave the Aeginetan
exiles the town of Thyrea to occupy and the adjoining country
to cultivate. ... About the end of the summer the entire
Athenian force, including the metics, invaded the territory of
Megara. ... After ravaging the greater part of the country
they retired. They repeated the invasion, sometimes with
cavalry, sometimes with the whole Athenian army, every year
during the war until Nisaea was taken [B. C. 424]."
Thucydides, History; translated by B. Jowett,
book 2; section 13-31 (volume 1).
ATHENS: B. C. 430.
The funeral oration of Pericles.
During the winter of the year B. C. 431-430, "in accordance
with an old national custom, the funeral of those who first
fell in this war was celebrated by the Athenians at the public
charge. The ceremony is as follows: Three days before the
celebration they erect a tent in which the bones of the dead
are laid out, and everyone brings to his own dead any offering
which he pleases. At the time of the funeral the bones are
placed in chests of cypress wood, which are conveyed on
hearses; there is one chest for each tribe. They also carry a
single empty litter decked with a pall for all whose bodies
are missing, and cannot be recovered after the battle. The
procession is accompanied by anyone who chooses, whether
citizen or stranger, and the female relatives of the deceased
are present at the place of interment and make lamentation.
The public sepulchre is situated in the most beautiful spot
outside the walls; there they always bury those who fall in
war; only after the battle of Marathon the dead, in
recognition of their pre-eminent valour, were interred on the
field. When the remains have been laid in the earth, some man
of known ability and high reputation, chosen by the city,
delivers a suitable oration over them; after which the people
depart. Such is the manner of interment; and the ceremony was
repeated from time to time throughout the war. Over those who
were the first buried Pericles was chosen to speak. At the
fitting moment he advanced from the sepulchre to a lofty
stage, which had been erected in order that he might be heard
as far as possible by the multitude, and spoke as
follows:
'Most of those who have spoken here before me have
commended the lawgiver who added this oration to our other
funeral customs; it seemed to them a worthy thing that such
an honour should be given at their burial to the dead who
have fallen on the field of battle. But I should have
preferred that, when men's deeds have been brave, they
should be honoured in deed only, and with such an honour as
this public funeral, which you are now witnessing. Then the
reputation of many would not have been imperilled on the
eloquence or want of eloquence of one, and their virtues
believed or not as he spoke well or ill. For it is
difficult to say neither too little nor too much; and even
moderation is apt not to give the impression of
truthfulness. The friend of the dead who knows the facts is
likely to think that the words of the speaker fall short of
his knowledge and of his wishes; another who is not so well
informed, when he hears of anything which surpasses his own
powers, will be envious and will suspect exaggeration.
Mankind are tolerant of the praises of others so long as
each hearer thinks that he can do as well or nearly as well
himself, but, when the speaker rises above him, jealousy is
aroused and he begins to be incredulous. However, since our
ancestors have set the seal of their approval upon the practice,
I must obey, and to the utmost of my power shall endeavour
to satisfy the wishes and beliefs of all who hear me. I
will speak first of our ancestors, for it is right and
becoming that now, when we are lamenting the dead, a
tribute should be paid to their memory. There has never
been a time when they did not inhabit this land, which by
their valour they have handed down from generation to
generation, and we have received from them a free state.
{169}
But if they were worthy of praise, still more were our
fathers who added to their inheritance, and after many a
struggle transmitted to us their sons this great empire.
And we ourselves assembled here to-day, who are still most
of us in the vigour of life, have chiefly done the work of
improvement, and have richly endowed our city with all
things, so that she is sufficient for herself both in peace
and war. Of the military exploits by which our various
possessions were acquired, or of the energy with which we
or our fathers drove back the tide of war, Hellenic or
Barbarian, I will not speak; for the tale would be long and
is familiar to you. But before I praise the dead, I should
like to point out by what principles of action we rose to
power, and under what institutions and through what manner
of life our empire became great. For I conceive, that such
thoughts are not unsuited to the occasion, and that this
numerous assembly of citizens and strangers may profitably
listen to them. Our form of government does not enter into
rivalry with the institutions of others. We do not copy our
neighbours, but are an example to them. It is true that we
are called a democracy, for the administration is in the
hands of the many and not of the few. But while the law
secures equal justice to all alike in their private
disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognised; and
when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred
to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as
the reward of merit. Neither is poverty a bar, but a man
may benefit his country whatever be the obscurity of his
condition. There is no exclusiveness in our public life,
and in our private intercourse we are not suspicious of one
another, nor angry with our neighbour if he does what he
likes; we do not put on sour looks at him which, though
harmless, are not pleasant. While we are thus unconstrained
in our private intercourse, a spirit of reverence pervades
our public acts; we are prevented from doing wrong by
respect for authority and for the laws, having an especial
regard to those which are ordained for the protection of
the injured as well as to those unwritten laws which bring
upon the transgressor of them the reprobation of the
general sentiment. And we have not forgotten to provide for
our weary spirits many relaxations from toil; we have
regular games and sacrifices throughout the year; at home
the style of our life is refined; and the delight which we
daily feel in all these things helps to banish melancholy.
Because of the greatness of our city the fruits of the
whole earth flow in upon us; so that we enjoy the goods of
other countries as freely as of our own. Then, again, our
military training is in many respects superior to that of
our adversaries. Our city is thrown open to the world, and
we never expel a foreigner or prevent him from seeing or
learning anything of which the secret if revealed to an
enemy might profit him. We rely not upon management or
trickery, but upon our own hearts and hands. And in the
matter of education, whereas they from early youth are
always undergoing laborious exercises which are to make
them brave, we live at ease, and yet are equally ready to
face the Lacedaemonians come into Attica not by themselves,
but with their whole confederacy following; we go alone
into a neighbour's country; and although our opponents are
fighting for their homes and we on a foreign soil we have
seldom any difficulty in overcoming them. Our enemies have
never yet felt our united strength; the care of a navy
divides our attention, and on land we are obliged to send
our own citizens everywhere. But they, if they meet and
defeat a part of our army, are as proud as if they had
routed us all, and when defeated they pretend to have been
vanquished by us all. If then we prefer to meet danger with
a light heart but without laborious training, and with a
courage which is gained by habit and not enforced by law,
are we not greatly the gainers? Since we do not anticipate
the pain, although, when the hour comes, we can be as brave
as those who never allow themselves to rest; and thus too
our city is equally admirable in peace and in war. For we
are lovers of the beautiful, yet simple in our tastes, and
we cultivate the mind without loss of manliness. Wealth we
employ, not for talk and ostentation, but when there is a
real use for it. To avow poverty with us is no disgrace;
the true disgrace is in doing nothing to avoid it. An
Athenian citizen does not neglect the state because he
takes care of his own household; and even those of us who
are engaged in business have a very fair idea of politics.
We alone regard a man who takes no interest in public
affairs, not as a harmless, but as a useless character; and
if few of us are originators, we are all sound judges of a
policy. The great impediment to action is, in our opinion,
not discussion, but the want of that knowledge which is
gained by discussion preparatory to action. For we have a
peculiar power of thinking before we act and of acting too,
whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but
hesitate upon reflection. And they are surely to be
esteemed the bravest spirits who, having the clearest sense
both of the pains and pleasures of life, do not on that
account shrink from danger. In doing good, again, we are
unlike others; we make our friends by conferring, not by
receiving favours. Now he who confers a favour is the
firmer friend, because he would fain by kindness keep alive
the memory of an obligation; but the recipient is colder in
his feelings, because he knows that in requiting another's
generosity he will not be winning gratitude but only paying
a debt. We alone do good to our neighbours not upon a
calculation of interest, but in the confidence of freedom
and in a frank and fearless spirit. To sum up; I say that
Athens is the school of Hellas, and that the individual
Athenian in his own person seems to have the power of
adapting himself to the most varied forms of action with
the utmost versatility and grace. This is no passing and
idle word, but truth and fact; and the assertion is
verified by the position to which these qualities have
raised the state. For in the hour of trial Athens alone
among her contemporaries is superior to the report of her.
No enemy who comes against her is indignant at the reverses
which he sustains at the hands of such a city; no subject
complains that his masters are unworthy of him. And we
shall assuredly not be without witnesses; there are mighty
monuments of our power which will make us the wonder of
this and of succeeding ages; we shall not need the praises
of Homer or of any other panegyrist whose poetry may please
for the moment, although his representation of the facts
will not bear the light of day.
{170}
For we have compelled every land and every sea to open a
path for our valour, and have everywhere planted eternal
memorials of our friendship and of our enmity. Such is the
city for whose sake these men nobly fought and died; they
could not bear the thought that she might be taken from
them; and everyone of us who survive should gladly toil on
her behalf. I have dwelt upon the greatness of Athens
because I want to show you that we are contending for a
higher prize than those who enjoy none of these privileges,
and to establish by manifest proof the merit of these men
whom I am now commemorating. Their loftiest praise has been
already spoken. For in magnifying the city I have magnified
them, and men like them whose virtues made her glorious.
And of how few Hellenes can it be said as of them, that
their deeds when weighed in the balance have been found
equal to their fame! Methinks that a death such as theirs
has been gives the true measure of a man's worth; it may be
the first revelation of his virtues, but is at any rate
their final seal. For even those who come short in other
ways may justly plead the valour with which they have
fought for their country; they have blotted out the evil
with the good, and have benefited the state more by their
public services than they have injured her by their private
actions. None of these men were enervated by wealth or
hesitated to resign the pleasures of life; none of them put
off the evil day in the hope, natural to poverty, that a
man, though poor, may one day become rich. But, deeming
that the punishment of their enemies was sweeter than any
of these things, and that they could fall in no nobler
cause, they determined at the hazard of their lives to be
honourably avenged, and to leave the rest. They resigned to
hope their unknown chance of happiness; but in the face of
death they resolved to rely upon themselves alone. And when
the moment came they were minded to resist and suffer,
rather than to fly and save their lives; they ran away from
the word of dishonour, but on the battle-field their feet
stood fast, and in an instant, at the height of their
fortune, they passed away from the scene, not of their
fear, but of their glory. Such was the end of these men;
they were worthy of Athens, and the living need not desire
to have a more heroic spirit although they may pray for a
less fatal issue. The value of such a spirit is not to be
expressed in words. Anyone can discourse to you for ever
about the advantages of a brave defence which you know
already. But instead of listening to him I would have you
day by day fix your eyes upon the greatness of Athens,
until you become filled with the love of her; and when you
are impressed by the spectacle of her glory reflect that
this empire has been acquired by men who knew their duty
and had the courage to do it; who in the hour of conflict