History for ready reference, Volume 1, A-Elba

by J. N. Larned

natives of Africa, and partly refugees from Spain. When
summoned to surrender he, nevertheless, returned a fierce and
haughty answer. But with such a handful of troops, neither his
desperate courage nor consummate skill in war could have long
resisted forces superior to those which had formerly defeated
Barbarossa at the head of 60,000 men." He was speedily
relieved from danger, however, by an opportune storm, which
burst upon the region during the second day after Charles's
debarkation. The Spanish camp was flooded; the soldiers
drenched, chilled, sleepless and dispirited. In this condition
they were attacked by the Moors at dawn, and narrowly escaped
a rout. "But all feeling of this disaster was soon obliterated
by a more affecting spectacle. As the tempest continued with
unabated violence, the full light of day showed the ships, on
which alone their safety depended, driving from their anchors,
dashing against one another, and many of them forced on the
rocks, or sinking in the waters. In less than an hour, 15
ships of war and 140 transports, with 8,000 men, perished
before their eyes; and such of the unhappy sailors as escaped
the fury of the sea, were murdered by the Arabs as soon as
they reached land." With such ships as he could save, Doria
sought shelter behind Cape Matafuz, sending a message to the
emperor, advising that he follow with the army to that point.
Charles could not do otherwise than act according to the
suggestion; but his army suffered horribly in the retreat,
which occupied three days. "Many perished by famine, as the
whole army subsisted chiefly on roots and berries, or on the
flesh of horses, killed for that purpose by the emperor's
orders; numbers were drowned in the swollen brooks; and not a
few were slain by the enemy." Even after the army had regained
the fleet, and was reembarked, it was scattered by a second
storm, and several weeks passed before the emperor reached his
Spanish dominions, a wiser and a sadder man.
M. Russell, History of the Barbary States, chapter 8.
ALSO IN: W. Robertson, History of the Reign of Charles V.,
book 6 (volume 2.)
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.
The pirate Dragut and his exploits.
Turkish capture of Tripoli.
Disastrous Christian attempt to recover the place.
Dragut, or Torghūd, a native of the Caramanian coast, opposite
the island of Rhodes, began his career as a Mediterranean
corsair some time before the last of the Barbarossas quitted
the scene and was advanced by the favor of the Algerine. In
1540 he fell into the hands of one of the Dorias and was bound
to the oar as a galley-slave for three years,--which did not
sweeten his temper toward the Christian world. In 1543 he was
ransomed, and resumed his piracies, with more energy than
before. "Dragut's lair was at the island of Jerba [called
Gelves, by the Spaniards]. ... Not content with the rich
spoils of Europe, Dragut took the Spanish outposts in Africa,
one by one--Susa, Sfax, Monastir; and finally set forth to
conquer 'Africa.'
{261}
It is not uncommon in Arabic to call a country and its capital
by the same name. ... 'Africa' meant to the Arabs the province
of Carthage or Tunis and its capital, which was not at first
Tunis but successively Kayrawan and Mahdiya. Throughout the
later middle ages the name 'Africa' is applied by Christian
writers to the latter city. ... This was the city which Dragut
took without a blow in the spring of 1550. Mahdiya was then in
an anarchic state, ruled by a council of chiefs, each ready to
betray the other, and none owing the smallest allegiance to
any king, least of all the despised king of Tunis, Hamid, who
had deposed and blinded his father, Hasan, Charles V. 's
protégé. One of these chiefs let Dragut and his merry men into
the city by night. ... So easy a triumph roused the emulation
of Christendom. ... Don Garcia de Toledo dreamed of outshining
the Corsair's glory. His father, the Viceroy of Naples, the
Pope, and others, promised their aid, and old Andrea Doria
took the command. After much delay and consultation a large
body of troops was conveyed to Mahdiya and disembarked on June
28, 1550. Dragut, though aware of the project, was at sea,
devastating the Gulf of Genoa, and paying himself in advance
for any loss the Christians might inflict in Africa: his
nephew Hisar Reis commanded in the city. When Dragut returned,
the siege had gone on for a month," but he failed in
attempting to raise it and retired to Jerba. Mahdiya was
carried by assault on the 8th of September. "Next year, 1551,
Dragut's place was with the Ottoman navy, then commanded by
Sinan Pasha. ... With nearly 150 galleys or galleots, 10,000
soldiers, and numerous siege-guns, Sinan and Dragut sailed out
of the Dardanelles--whither bound no Christian could tell.
They ravaged, as usual, the Straits of Messina, and then
revealed the point of attack by making direct for Malta." But
the demonstration made against the strong fortifications of
the Knights of St. John was ill-planned and feebly executed;
it was easily repelled. To wipe out his defeat, Sinan "sailed
straight for Tripoli, some 64 leagues away. Tripoli was the
natural antidote to Malta: for Tripoli, too, belonged to the
Knights of St. John--much against their will--inasmuch as the
Emperor had made their defence of this easternmost Barbary
state a condition of their tenure of Malta." But the
fortifications of Tripoli were not strong enough to resist the
Turkish bombardment, and Gaspard de Villiers, the commandant,
was forced to surrender (August 15th), "on terms, as he
believed, identical with those which Suleyman granted to the
Knights of Rhodes. But Sinan was no Suleyman; moreover, he was
in a furious rage with the whole Order. He put the
garrison--all save a few--in chains and carried them off to
grace his triumph at Stambol. Thus did Tripoli fall once more
into the hands of the Moslems. ... The misfortunes of the
Christians did not end here. Year after year the Ottoman fleet
appeared in Italian waters. ... Unable as they felt themselves
to cope with the Turks at sea, the powers of Southern Europe
resolved to strike one more blow on land, and recover Tripoli.
A fleet of nearly 100 galleys and ships, gathered from Spain,
Genoa, 'the Religion,' the Pope, from all quarters, with the
Duke de Medina-Celi at their head, assembled at Messina. ...
Five times the expedition put to sea; five times was it driven
back by contrary winds. At last, on February 10, 1560, it was
fairly away for the African coast. Here fresh troubles awaited
it. Long delays in crowded vessels had produced their
disastrous effects: fevers and scurvy and dysentery were
working their terrible ravages among the crews, and 2,000
corpses were flung into the sea. It was impossible to lay
siege to Tripoli with a diseased army, and when actually in
sight of their object the admirals gave orders to return to
Jerba. A sudden descent quickly gave them the command of the
beautiful island. ... In two months a strong castle was built,
with all scientific earthworks, and the admiral prepared to
carry home such troops as were not needed for its defence.
Unhappily for him, he had lingered too long. ... He was about
to prepare for departure when news came that the Turkish fleet
had been seen at Goza. Instantly all was panic. Valiant
gentlemen forgot their valour, forgot their coolness. ...
Before they could make out of the strait ... the dread Corsair
[Dragut] himself, and Ochiali, and Piali Pasha were upon them.
Then ensued a scene of confusion that baffles description.
Despairing of weathering the north side of Jerba the
panic-stricken Christians ran their ships ashore and deserted
them, never stopping even to set them on fire. ... On rowed
the Turks; galleys and galleons to the number of 56 fell into
their hands; 18,000 Christians bowed down before their
scimitars; the beach on that memorable 11th of May, 1560, was
a confused medley of stranded ships, helpless prisoners, Turks
busy in looting men and galleys--and a hideous heap of mangled
bodies. The fleet and the army which had sailed from Messina
... were absolutely lost."
S. Lane-Poole, Story of the Barbary Corsairs.
ALSO IN: W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Philip II.,
book 4, chapter 1.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1563-1565.
Repulse of the Moors from Oran and Mazarquiver.
Capture of Penon de Velez.
In the spring of 1563 a most determined and formidable attempt
was made by Hassem, the dey of Algiers, to drive the Spaniards
from Oran and Mazarquiver, which they had held since the
African conquests of Cardinal Ximenes. The siege was fierce
and desperate; the defence most heroic. The beleaguered
garrisons held their ground until a relieving expedition from
Spain came in sight, on the 8th of June, when the Moors
retreated hastily. In the summer of the next year the
Spaniards took the strong island fortress of Penon de Velez,
breaking up one more nest of piracy and strengthening their
footing on the Barbary coast. In the course of the year
following they blocked the mouth of the river Tetuan, which
was a place of refuge for the marauders.
W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Philip II.,
book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2).
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1565.
Participation in the Turkish Siege of Malta.
Death of Dragut.
See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1,130-1565.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1570-1571.
War with the Holy League of Spain, Venice and the Pope.
The Battle of Lepanto.
See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1572-1573.
Capture of Tunis by Don John of Austria.
Its recovery, with Goletta, by the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1572-1573.
{262}
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1579.
Invasion of Morocco by Sebastian of Portugal.
His defeat and death.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.
Wars of France against the piratical powers.
Destructive bombardments of Algiers.
"The ancient alliance of the crown of France with the Ottoman
Porte, always unpopular, and less necessary since France had
become so strong, was at this moment [early in the reign of
Louis XIV.] well-nigh broken, to the great satisfaction both
of the Christian nations of the South and of the Austrian
empire. ... Divers plans were proposed in the King's council
for attacking the Ottoman power on the Moorish coasts, and for
repressing the pirates, who were the terror of the
merchant-shipping and maritime provinces. Colbert induced the
king to attempt a military settlement among the Moors as the
best means of holding them in check. A squadron commanded by
the Duke de Beaufort ... landed 5,000 picked soldiers before
Jijeli (or Djigelli), a small Algerine port between Bougiah
and Bona. They took possession of Jijeli without difficulty
(July 22, 1664); but discord arose between Beaufort and his
officers; they did not work actively enough to fortify
themselves," and before the end of September they were obliged
to evacuate the place precipitately. "The success of
Beaufort's squadron, commanded under the duke by the
celebrated Chevalier Paul, ere long effaced the impression of
this reverse: two Algerine flotillas were destroyed in the
course of 1665." The Dey of Algiers sent one of his French
captives, an officer named Du Babinais, to France with
proposals of peace, making him swear to return if his mission
failed. The proposals were rejected; Du Babinais was loyal to
his oath and returned--to suffer death, as he expected, at the
hands of the furious barbarian. "The devotion of this Breton
Regulus was not lost: despondency soon took the place of anger
in the heart of the Moorish chiefs. Tunis yielded first to the
guns of the French squadron, brought to bear on it from the
Bay of Goletta. The Pacha and the Divan of Tunis obligated
themselves to restore all the French slaves they possessed, to
respect French ships, and thenceforth to release all Frenchmen
whom they should capture on foreign ships. .... Rights of
aubaine, and of admiralty and shipwreck, were suppressed as
regarded Frenchmen (November 25, 1665). The station at Cape
Negro was restored to France. ... Algiers submitted, six'
months after, to nearly the same conditions imposed on it by
Louis XIV.: one of the articles stipulated that French
merchants should be treated as favorably as any foreign
nation, and even more so (May 17, 1666). More than 3,000
French slaves were set at liberty." Between 1669 and 1672,
Louis XIV. was seriously meditating a great war of conquest
with the Turks and their dependencies, but preferred, finally,
to enter upon his war with Holland, which brought the other
project to naught. France and the Ottoman empire then remained
on tolerably good terms until 1681, when a "squadron of
Tripolitan corsairs having carried off a French ship on the
coast of Provence, Duquesne, at the head of seven vessels,
pursued the pirates into the waters of Greece. They took
refuge in the harbor of Scio. Duquesne summoned the Pacha of
Scio to expel them. The Pacha refused, and fired on the French
squadron, when Duquesne cannonaded both the pirates and the
town with such violence that the Pacha, terrified, asked for a
truce, in order to refer the matter to the Sultan (July 23,
1681). Duquesne converted the attack into a blockade. At the
news of this violation of the Ottoman territory, the Sultan,
Mahomet IV., fell into a rage ... and dispatched the
Captain-Pacha to Scio with 32 galleys. Duquesne allowed the
Turkish galleys to enter the harbor, then blockaded them with
the pirates, and declared that he would burn the whole if
satisfaction were not had of the Tripolitans. The Divan
hesitated. War was about to recommence with the Emperor; it
was not the moment to kindle it against France." In the end
there was a compromise, and the Tripolitans gave up the French
vessel and the slaves they had captured, promising, also, to
receive a French consul at Tripoli. "During this time another
squadron, commanded by Château-Renault, blockaded the coasts
of Morocco, the men of Maghreb having rivalled in depredations
the vassals of Turkey. The powerful Emperor of Morocco, Muley
Ismael, sent the governor of Tetuan to France to solicit peace
of Louis XIV. The treaty was signed at Saint-Germain, January
29, 1682, on advantageous conditions," including restitution
of French slaves. "Affairs did not terminate so amicably with
Algiers. From this piratical centre had proceeded the gravest
offenses. A captain of the royal navy was held in slavery
there, with many other Frenchmen. It was resolved to inflict a
terrible punishment on the Algerines. The thought of
conquering Algeria had more than once presented itself to the
king and Colbert, and they appreciated the value of this
conquest; the Jijeli expedition had been formerly a first
attempt. They did not, however, deem it incumbent on them to
embark in such an enterprise; a descent, a siege, would have
required too great preparations; they had recourse· to another
means of attack. The regenerator of the art of naval
construction, Petit-Renau, invented bomb-ketches expressly for
the purpose. ... July 23, 1682, Duquesne anchored before
Algiers, with 11 ships, 15 galleys, 5 bomb-ketches, and
Petit-Renau to guide them. After five weeks' delay caused by
bad weather, then by a fire on one of the bomb-ketches, the
thorough trial took place during the night of August 30. The
effect was terrible: a part of the great mosque fell on the
crowd that had taken refuge there. During the night of
September 3-4, the Algerines attempted to capture the
bomb-ketches moored at the entrance of their harbor; they were
repulsed, and the bombardment continued. The Dey wished to
negotiate; the people, exasperated, prevented him. The wind
shifting to the northwest presaged the equinoctial storm;
Duquesne set sail again, September 12. The expedition had not
been decisive. It was begun anew. June 18, 1683, Duquesne
reappeared in the road of Algiers; he had, this time, seven
bomb-ketches instead of five. These instruments of
extermination had been perfected in the interval. The nights
of June 26-27 witnessed the overthrow of a great number of
houses, several mosques, and the palace of the Dey. A thousand
men perished in the harbor and the town." The Dey opened
negotiations, giving up 700 French slaves, but was killed by
his Janizaries, and one Hadgi-Hussein proclaimed in his stead.
{263}
"The bombardment was resumed with increasing violence. ... The
Algerines avenged themselves by binding to the muzzles of
their guns a number of Frenchmen who remained in their hands.
... The fury of the Algerines drew upon them redoubled
calamities. ... The bombs rained almost without intermission.
The harbor was strewn with the wrecks of vessels. The city was
... a heap of bloody ruins." But "the bomb-ketches had
exhausted their ammunition. September was approaching.
Duquesne again departed; but a strong blockading force was
kept up, during the whole winter, as a standing threat of the
return of the 'infernal vessels.' The Algerines finally bowed
their head, and, April 25, 1684, peace was accorded by
Tourville, the commander of the blockade, to the Pacha, Dey,
Divan, and troops of Algiers. The Algerines restored 320
French slaves remaining in their power, and 180 other
Christians claimed by the King; the janizaries only which had
been taken from them were restored; they engaged to make no
prizes within ten leagues of the coast of France, nor to
assist the other Moorish corsairs at war with France; to
recognize the precedence of the flag of France over all other
flags, &c., &c.; lastly, they sent an embassy to carry their
submission to Louis XIV.; they did not, however, pay the
damages which Duquesne had wished to exact of them."
H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
volume 1, chapter 4 and 7.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1785-1801.
Piratical depredations upon American commerce.
Humiliating treaties and tribute.
The example of resistance given by the United States.
"It is difficult for us to realize that only 70 years ago the
Mediterranean was so unsafe that the merchant ships of every
nation stood in danger of being captured by pirates, unless
they were protected either by an armed convoy or by tribute
paid to the petty Barbary powers. Yet we can scarcely open a
book of travels during the last century without mention being
made of the immense risks to which everyone was exposed who
ventured by sea from Marseilles to Naples. ... The European
states, in order to protect their commerce, had the choice
either of paying certain sums per head for each captive, which
in reality was a premium on capture, or of buying entire
freedom for their commerce by the expenditure of large sums
yearly. The treaty renewed by France, in 1788, with Algiers,
was for fifty years, and it was agreed to pay $200,000
annually, besides large presents distributed according to
custom every ten years, and a great sum given down. The peace
of Spain with Algiers is said to have cost from three to five
millions of dollars. There is reason to believe that at the
same time England was paying an annual tribute of about
$280,000. England was the only power sufficiently strong on
the sea to put down these pirates; but in order to keep her
own position as mistress of the seas she preferred to leave
them in existence in order to be a scourge to the commerce of
other European powers, and even to support them by paying a
sum so great that other states might find it difficult to make
peace with them. When the Revolution broke out, we [of the
United States of America] no longer had the safeguards for our
commerce that had been given to us by England, and it was
therefore that in our very first negotiations for a treaty
with France we desired to have an article inserted into the
treaty, that the king of France should secure the inhabitants
of the United States, and their vessels and effects, against
all attacks or depredations from any of the Barbary powers. It
was found impossible to insert this article in the treaty of
1778, and instead of that the king agreed to 'employ his good
offices and interposition in order to provide as fully and
efficaciously as possible for the benefit, conveniency and
safety of the United States against the princes and the states
of Barbary or their subjects.'"
Direct negotiations between the United States and the
piratical powers were opened in 1785, by a call which Mr.
Adams made upon the Tripolitan ambassador. The latter
announced to Mr. Adams that "'Turkey, Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers,
and Morocco were the sovereigns of the Mediterranean; and that
no nation could navigate that sea without a treaty of peace
with them.' ... The ambassador demanded as the lowest price
for a perpetual peace 30,000 guineas for his employers and
£3,000 for himself; that Tunis would probably treat on the
same terms; but he could not answer for Algiers or Morocco.
Peace with all four powers would cost at least $1,000,000, and
Congress had appropriated only $80,000. ... Mr. Adams was
strongly opposed to war, on account of the expense, and
preferred the payment of tribute. ... Mr. Jefferson quite as
decidedly preferred war." The opinion in favor of a trial of
pacific negotiations prevailed, and a treaty with the Emperor
of Morocco was concluded in 1787. An attempt at the same time
to make terms with the Del of Algiers and to redeem a number
of American captives in his hands, came to nothing. "For the
sake of saving a few thousand dollars, fourteen men were
allowed to remain in imprisonment for ten years. ... In
November, 1793, the number of [American] prisoners at Algiers
amounted to 115 men, among whom there remained only ten of the
original captives of 1785." At last, the nation began to
realize the intolerable shame of the matter, and, "on January
2, 1794, the House of Representatives resolved that a 'naval
force adequate for the protection of the commerce of the
United States against the AIgerine forces ought to be
provided.' In the same year authority was given to build six
frigates, and to procure ten smaller vessels to be equipped as
galleys. Negotiations, however, continued to go on," and in
September, 1795, a treaty with the Dey was concluded. "In
making this treaty, however, we had been obliged to follow the
usage of European powers--not only pay a large sum for the
purpose of obtaining peace, but an annual tribute, in order to
keep our vessels from being captured in the future. The total
cost of fulfilling the treaty was estimated at $992,463. 25."
E. Schuyler, American Diplomacy, part 4.
"The first treaty of 1795, with Algiers, which was negotiated
during Washington's administration, cost the United States,
for the ransom of American captives, and the Dey's
forbearance, a round $1,000,000, in addition to which an
annuity was promised. Treaties with other Barbary States
followed, one of which purchased peace from Tripoli by the
payment of a gross sum. Nearly $2,000,000 had been squandered
thus far in bribing these powers to respect our flag, and
President Adams complained in 1800 that the United States had
to pay three times the tribute imposed upon Sweden and
Denmark.
{264}
But this temporizing policy only made matters worse. Captain
Bainbridge arrived at Algiers in 1800, bearing the annual
tribute money for the Dey in a national frigate, and the Dey
ordered him to proceed to Constantinople to deliver Algerine
dispatches. 'English, French, and Spanish ships of war have
done the same,' said the Dey, insolently, when Bainbridge and
the American consul remonstrated. 'You pay me tribute because
you are my slaves.' Bainbridge had to obey. ... The lesser
Barbary States were still more exasperating. The Bashaw of
Tripoli had threatened to seize American vessels unless
President Adams sent him a present like that bestowed upon
Algiers. The Bashaw of Tunis made a similar demand upon the
new President [Jefferson]. ... Jefferson had, while in
Washington's cabinet, expressed his detestation of the method
hitherto favored for pacifying these pests of commerce; and,
availing himself of the present favorable opportunity, he sent
out Commodore Dale with a squadron of three frigates and a
sloop of war, to make a naval demonstration on the coast of
Barbary. ... Commodore Dale, upon arriving at Gibraltar [July,
1801], found two Tripolitan cruisers watching for American
vessels; for, as had been suspected, Tripoli already meditated
war. The frigate Philadelphia blockaded these vessels, while
Bainbridge, with the frigate Essex, convoyed American vessels
in the Mediterranean. Dale, in the frigate President,
proceeded to cruise off Tripoli, followed by the schooner
Experiment, which presently captured a Tripolitan cruiser of
14 guns after a spirited action. The Barbary powers were for a
time overawed, and the United States thus set the first
example among Christian nations of making reprisals instead of
ransom the rule of security against these commercial
marauders. In this respect Jefferson's conduct was applauded
at home by men of all parties."
J. Schouler, History of the U. S.,
chapter 5, section 1 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
R. L. Playfair, The Scourge of Christendom, chapter 16.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1803-1805.
American War with the pirates of Tripoli.
"The war with Tripoli dragged tediously along, and seemed no
nearer its end at the close of 1803 than 18 months before.
Commodore Morris, whom the President sent to command the
Mediterranean squadron, cruised from port to port between May,
1802, and August, 1803, convoying merchant vessels from
Gibraltar to Leghorn and Malta, or lay in harbor and repaired
his ships, but neither blockaded nor molested Tripoli; until
at length, June 21, 1803, the President called him home and
dismissed him from the service. His successor was Commodore
Preble, who Sept. 12, 1803, reached Gibraltar with the
relief-squadron which Secretary Gallatin thought unnecessarily
strong. ... He found Morocco taking part with Tripoli. Captain
Bainbridge, who reached Gibraltar in the 'Philadelphia' August
24, some three weeks before Preble arrived, caught in the
neighborhood a Moorish cruiser of 22 guns with an American
brig in its clutches. Another American brig had just been
seized at Mogador. Determined to stop this peril at the
outset, Preble united to his own squadron the ships which he
had come to relieve, and with this combined force, ... sending
the 'Philadelphia' to blockade Tripoli, he crossed to Tangiers
October 6, and brought the Emperor of Morocco to reason. On
both sides prizes and prisoners were restored, and the old
treaty was renewed, This affair consumed time; and when at
length Preble got the 'Constitution' under way for the
Tripolitan coast, he spoke [to] a British frigate off the
Island of Sardinia, which reported that the 'Philadelphia' had
been captured October 21, more than three weeks before.
Bainbridge, cruising off Tripoli, had chased a Tripolitan
cruiser into shoal water, and was hauling off, when the
frigate struck on a reef at the mouth of the harbor. Every
effort was made without success to float her; but at last she
was surrounded by Tripolitan gunboats, and Bainbridge struck
his flag. The Tripolitans, after a few days work, floated the
frigate, and brought her under the guns of the castle. The
officers became prisoners of war, and the crew, in number 300
or more, were put to hard labor. The affair was in no way
discreditable to the squadron. ... The Tripolitans gained
nothing except the prisoners; for at Bainbridge's suggestion
Preble, some time afterward, ordered Stephen Decatur, a young
lieutenant in command of the 'Enterprise', to take a captured
Tripolitan craft renamed the 'Intrepid,' and with a crew of 75
men to sail from Syracuse, enter the harbor of Tripoli by
night, board the 'Philadelphia,' and burn her under the castle
guns. The order was literally obeyed. Decatur ran into the
harbor at ten o'clock in the night of February 16, 1804, boarded
the frigate within half gun-shot of the Pacha's castle, drove
the Tripolitan crew overboard, set the ship on fire, remained
alongside until the flames were beyond control, and then
withdrew without losing a man."
H. Adams, History of the United States: Administration of
Jefferson, volume 2, chapter 7.
"Commodore Preble, in the meantime, hurried his preparations
for more serious work, and on July 25th arrived off Tripoli
with a squadron, consisting of the frigate Constitution, three
brigs, three schooners, six gunboats, and two bomb vessels.
Opposed to him were arrayed over a hundred guns mounted on
shore batteries, nineteen gunboats, one ten-gun brig, two
schooners mounting eight guns each, and twelve galleys.
Between August 3rd and September 3rd five attacks were made,
and though the town was never reduced, substantial damage was
inflicted, and the subsequent satisfactory peace rendered
possible. Preble was relieved by Barron in September, not
because of any loss of confidence in his ability, but from
exigencies of the service, which forbade the Government
sending out an officer junior to him in the relief squadron
which reinforced his own. Upon his return to the United States
he was presented with a gold medal, and the thanks of Congress
were tendered him, his officers, and men, for gallant and
faithful services. The blockade was maintained vigorously, and
in 1805 an attack was made upon the Tripolitan town of Derna,
by a combined land and naval force; the former being under
command of Consul-General Eaton, who had been a captain in the
American army, and of Lieutenant O'Bannon of the Marines. The
enemy made a spirited though disorganized defence, but the
shells of the war-ships drove them from point to point, and
finally their principal work was carried by the force under
O'Bannon and Midshipman Mann. Eaton was eager to press
forward, but he was denied reinforcements and military stores,
and much of his advantage was lost.
{265}
All further operations were, however, discontinued in June,
1805, when, after the usual intrigues, delays, and
prevarications, a treaty was signed by the Pasha, which
provided that no further tribute should be exacted, and that
American vessels should be forever free of his rovers.
Satisfactory as was this conclusion, the uncomfortable fact
remains that tribute entered into the settlement. After all
the prisoners had been exchanged man for man, the Tripolitan
Government demanded, and the United States paid, the handsome
sum of sixty thousand dollars to close the contract. This
treaty, however, awakened the conscience of Europe, and from
the day it was signed the power of the Barbary Corsairs began
to wane. The older countries saw their duty more clearly, and
ceased to legalize robbery on the high seas."
S. Lane-Poole, Story of the Barbary Corsairs, chapter 20.
ALSO IN:
J. F. Cooper, History of the U. S. Navy,
volume 1, chapter 18 and volume 2, chapter 1-7.
J. F. Cooper, Life of Preble.
A. S. Mackenzie, Life of Decatur, chapter 3-7.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1815.
Final War of Algiers with the United States.
Death-blow to Algerine piracy.
"Just as the late war with Great Britain broke out, the Dey of
Algiers, taking offense at not having received from America
the precise articles in the way of tribute demanded, had
unceremoniously dismissed Lear, the consul, had declared war,
and had since captured an American vessel, and reduced her
crew to slavery. Immediately after the ratification of the
treaty with England, this declaration had been reciprocated.
Efforts had been at once made to fit out ships, new and old,
including several small ones lately purchased for the proposed
squadrons of Porter and Perry, and before many weeks Decatur
sailed from New York with the Guerrière, Macedonian, and
Constellation frigates, now released from blockade; the
Ontario, new sloop of war, four brigs, and two schooners. Two
days after passing Gibralter, he fell in with and captured an
Algerine frigate of 44 guns, the largest ship in the Algerine
navy, which struck to the Guerrière after a running fight of
twenty-five minutes. A day or two after, an Algerine brig was
chased into shoal water on the Spanish coast, and captured by
the smaller vessels. Decatur having appeared off Algiers, the
terrified Dey at once consented to a treaty, which he
submitted to sign on Decatur's quarter deck, surrendering all
prisoners on hand, making certain pecuniary indemnities,
renouncing all future claim to any American tribute or
presents, and the practice, also, of reducing prisoners of war
to slavery. Decatur then proceeded to Tunis and Tripoli, and
obtained from both indemnity for certain American vessels
captured under the guns of their forts by British cruisers
during the late war. The Bey of Tripoli being short of cash,
Decatur agreed to accept in part payment the restoration of
liberty to eight Danes and two Neapolitans held as slaves."
R. Hildreth, History of the U. S., Second Series, chapter 30
(volume 3).
ALSO IN:
A. S. Mackenzie, Life of Decatur, chapter 13-14.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1816.
Bombardment of Algiers by Lord Exmouth.
Relinquishment of Christian slavery in Algiers, Tripolis and
Tunis.
"The corsairs of Barbary still scoured the Mediterranean; the
captives, whom they had taken from Christian vessels, still
languished in captivity in Algiers; and, to the disgrace of
the civilized world, a piratical state was suffered to exist
in its very centre. ... The conclusion of the war [of the
Coalition against Napoleon and France] made the continuance of
these ravages utterly intolerable. In the interests of
civilization it was essential that piracy should be put down;
Britain was mistress of the seas, and it therefore devolved
upon her to do the work. ... Happily for this country the
Mediterranean command was held by an officer [Lord Exmouth]
whose bravery and skill were fully equal to the dangers before
him. ... Early in 1816 Exmouth was instructed to proceed to
the several states of Barbary; to require them to recognize
the cession of the Ionian Islands to Britain; to conclude
peace with the kingdoms of Sardinia and Naples; and to abolish
Christian slavery. The Dey of Algiers readily assented to the
two first of these conditions; the Beys of Tripolis and Tunis
followed the example of the Dey of Algiers, and in addition
consented to refrain in future from treating prisoners of war
as slaves. Exmouth thereupon returned to Algiers, and
endeavoured to obtain a similar concession from the Dey. The
Dey pleaded that Algiers was subject to the Ottoman Porte,"
and obtained a truce of three months in order to confer with
the Sultan. But meantime the Algerines made an unprovoked
attack upon a neighbouring coral fishery, which was protected
by the British flag, massacring the fishermen and destroying
the flag. This brought Exmouth back to Algiers in great haste,
with an ultimatum which he delivered on the 27th of August. No
answer to it was returned, and the fleet (which had been
joined by some vessels of the Dutch navy) sailed into battle
range that same afternoon. "The Algerines permitted the ships
to move into their stations. The British reserved their fire
till they could deliver it with good effect. A crowd of
spectators watched the ships from the shore; and Exmouth waved
his hat to them to move and save themselves from the fire.
They had not the prudence to avail themselves of his timely
warning. A signal shot was fired by the Algerines from the
mole. The 'Queen Charlotte' replied by delivering her entire
broadside. Five hundred men were struck down by the first
discharge. ... The battle, which had thus begun at two o'clock
in the afternoon, continued till ten o'clock in the evening.
By that time half Algiers had been destroyed; the whole of the
Algerine navy had been burned; and, though a few of the
enemy's batteries still maintained a casual fire, their
principal fortifications were crumbling ruins; the majority of
their guns were dismounted." The Dey humbled himself to the
terms proposed by the British commander. "On the first day of
September Exmouth had the satisfaction of acquainting his
government with the liberation of all the slaves in the city
of Algiers, and the restitution of the money paid since the
commencement of the year by the Neapolitan and Sardinian
Governments for the redemption of slaves." He had also
extorted from the piratical Dey a solemn declaration that he
would, in future wars, treat all prisoners according to the
usages of European nations. In the battle which won these
important results, "128 men were killed and 690 wounded on
board the British fleet; the Dutch lost 13 killed and 52
wounded."
S. Walpole, History of England from 1815,
chapter 2 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
H. Martineau, History of the Thirty Years Peace,
book 1, chapter 6 (volume l).
L. Hertslet, Collection of Treaties and Conventions,
volume 1.
{266}
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830.
French conquest of Algiers.
"During the Napoleonic wars, the Dey of Algiers supplied grain
for the use of the French armies; it was bought by merchants
of Marseilles, and there was a dispute about the matter which
was unsettled as late as 1829. Several instalments had been
paid; the dey demanded payment in full according to his own
figures, while the French government, believing the demand
excessive, required an investigation. In one of the numerous
debates on the subject, Hussein Pasha, the reigning dey,
became very angry, struck the consul with a fan, and ordered
him out of the house. He refused all reparation for the
insult, even on the formal demand of the French government,
and consequently there was no alternative but war." The
expedition launched from the port of Toulon, for the
chastisement of the insolent Algerine, "comprised 37,500 men,
3,000 horses, and 180 pieces of artillery. ... The sea-forces
included 11 ships of the line, 23 frigates, 70 smaller
vessels, 377 transports, and 230 boats for landing troops.
General Bourmont, Minister of War, commanded the expedition,
which appeared in front of Algiers on the 13th of June, 1830."
Hussein Pasha "had previously asked for aid from the Sultan of
Turkey, but that wily ruler had blankly refused. The beys of
Tunis and Tripoli had also declined to meddle with the
affair." The landing of the French was effected safely and
without serious opposition, at Sidi-Ferruch, about 16 miles
west of Algiers. The Algerine army, 40,000 to 50,000 strong,
commanded by Aga Ibrahim, son-in-law of the dey, took its
position on the table-land of Staoueli, overlooking the
French, where it waited while their landing was made. On the
19th General Bourmont was ready to advance. His antagonist,
instead of adhering to the waiting attitude, and forcing the
French to attack him, on his own ground, now went out to meet
them, and flung his disorderly mob against their disciplined
battalions, with the result that seldom fails. "The Arab loss
in killed and wounded was about 3,000, ... while the French
loss was less than 500. In little more than an hour the battle
was over, and the Osmanlis were in full and disorderly
retreat." General Bourmont took possession of the Algerine
camp at Staoueli, where he was again attacked on the 24th of
June, with a similar disastrous result to the Arabs. He then
advanced upon the city of Algiers, established his army in
position behind the city, constructed batteries, and opened,
on the 4th of July, a bombardment so terrific that the dey
hoisted the white flag in a few hours. "Hussein Pasha hoped to
the last moment to retain his country and its independence by
making liberal concessions in the way of indemnity for the
expenses of the war, and offered to liberate all Christian
slaves in addition to paying them for their services and
sufferings. The English consul tried to mediate on this basis,
but his offers of mediation were politely declined. ... It was
finally agreed that the dey should surrender Algiers with all
its forts and military stores, and be permitted to retire
wherever he chose with his wives, children, and personal
belongings, but he was not to remain in the country under any
circumstances. On the 5th of July the French entered Algiers
in great pomp and took possession of the city. ... The spoils
of war were such as rarely fall to the lot of a conquering
army, when its numbers and the circumstances of the campaign
are considered. In the treasury was found a large room filled
with gold and silver coins heaped together indiscriminately,
the fruits of three centuries of piracy; they were the coins
of all the nations that had suffered from the depredations of
the Algerines, and the variety in the dates showed very
clearly that the accumulation had been the work of two or
three hundred years. How much money was contained in this vast
pile is not known; certain it is that nearly 50,000,000
francs, or £2,000,000 sterling, actually reached the French
treasury. ... The cost of the war was much more than covered
by the captured property. ... Many slaves were liberated. ...
The Algerine power was forever broken, and from that day
Algeria has been a prosperous colony of France. Hussein Pasha
embarked on the 10th of July with a suite of 110 persons, of
whom 55 were women. He proceeded to Naples, where he remained
for a time, went afterwards to Leghorn, and finally to Egypt."
In Egypt he died, under circumstances which indicated poison.
T. W. Knox, Decisive Battles Since Waterloo, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
R. L. Playfair, The Scourge of Christendom, chapter 19.
E. E. Crowe, History of the Reigns of Louis XVIII. and
Charles X., volume 2, chapter 13.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.
The French war of Subjugation in Algeria with Abd-el-Kader.
"When Louis Philippe ascended the throne [of France, A. D.
1830] the generals of his predecessor had overrun the country
[of Algiers]--though they did not effectually subdue it;
their absolute dominion not extending far round Algiers--from
Bona, on the east, in latitude 36° 53' North, longitude 7° 46'
West, to Oran, on the west--nearly the entire extent of the
ancient Libya. ... There was always a party in the chamber of
deputies opposed to the conquest who deprecated the
colonisation of Algeria, and who steadily opposed any grants
of either men or money to be devoted to the African
enterprise. The natural result followed. Ten thousand men
could not effect the work for which 40,000 were required; and,
whilst the young colony languished, the natives became
emboldened, and encouraged to make that resistance which cost
the French so dear. Marshal Clausel, when entrusted with the
government of the colony, and the supreme command of the
troops ... established a series of fortified posts, which were
adequately garrisoned; and roads were opened to enable the
garrisons promptly to communicate with each other. These
positions, rapidly acquired, he was unable to maintain, in
consequence of the home government recalling the greater part
of his force. To recruit his army he resolved to enlist some
corps of the natives; and, in October, 1830, the first
regiment of zouaves was raised." ... In 1833 we "first hear of
Abd-el-Kader. This chief was the son of a marabout, or priest,
in the province of Oran. He united consummate ability with
great valour; was a devout Mohammedan; and when he raised the
standard of the prophet, he called the Arabs around him, with
the fullest confidence of success.
{267}
His countrymen obeyed his call in great numbers; and,
encouraged by the enthusiasm they displayed, he first, at the
close of 1833, proclaimed himself emir of Tlemsen (the former
name of Oran), and then seized on the port of Arzew, on the
west side of the gulf of that name; and the port of
Mostaganem, on the opposite coast. The province of Mascara,
lying at the foot of the Atlas, was also under his rule. At
that time General Desmichels commanded at Oran. He had not a
very large force, but he acted promptly. Marching against
Abd-el-Kader, he defeated him in two pitched battles; retook
Arzew and Mostaganem; and, on the 26th of February, 1834,
entered into a treaty with the emir, by which both parties
were bound to keep the peace towards each other. During that
year the terms were observed; but, in 1835, the Arab chief
again commenced hostilities. He marched to the east, entered
the French territories, and took possession of Medeah, being
received with the utmost joy by the inhabitants. On the 26th
of June, General Trezel, with only 2,300 men, marched against
him. Abd-el-Kader had 8,000 Arabs under his command; and a
sanguinary combat took place in the defiles of Mouley-Ismael.
After a severe combat, the French forced the passage, but with
considerable loss. ... The French general, finding his
position untenable, commenced a retrograde movement on the
28th of June. In his retreat he was pursued by the Arabs; and
before he reached Oran, on the 4th of July, he lost all his
waggons, train, and baggage; besides having ten officers, and
252 sous-officers and rank-and-file killed, and 308 wounded.
The heads of many of the killed were displayed in triumph by
the victors. This was a severe blow to the French, and the
cause of great rejoicing to the Arabs. The former called for
marshal Clausel to be restored to his command, and the
government at home complied; at the same time issuing a
proclamation, declaring that Algeria should not be abandoned,
but that the honour of the French arms should be maintained.
The marshal left France on the 28th of July; and as soon as he
landed, he organised an expedition against Mascara, which was
Abd-el-Kader's capital. ... The Arab chieftain advanced to
meet the enemy; but, being twice defeated, he resolved to
abandon his capital, which the French entered on the 6th of
December, and found completely deserted. The streets and
houses were alike empty and desolate; and the only living
creature they encountered was an old woman, lying on some
mats, who could not move of herself, and had been either
forgotten or abandoned. The French set fire to the deserted
houses; and having effected the destruction of Mascara, they
marched to Mostaganem, which Clausel determined to make the
centre of French power in that district."
Thomas Wright, History of France, volume 3, pages 633-635.
"A camp was established on the Taafna in April 1836, and an
action took place there on the 25th, when the Tableau states
that 3,000 French engaged 10,000 natives; and some of the
enemies being troops of Morocco, an explanation was required
of Muley-Abd-er-Rachman, the emperor, who said that the
assistance was given to the Algerines without his knowledge.
On July 6th, 1836, Abd-el-Kader suffered a disastrous defeat
on the river Sikkak, near Tlemsen, at the hands of Marshal
Bugeaud. November 1836, the first expedition was formed
against Constantina. ...After the failure of Clauzel, General
Damrémont was appointed governor, February 12th, 1837; and on the
30th of May the treaty of the Taafna between General Bugeaud
and Abd-el-Kader left the French government at liberty to
direct an their attention against Constantina, a camp being
formed at Medjoy-el-Ahmar in that direction. An army of 10,000
men set out thence on the 1st of October, 1837, for
Constantina. On the 6th it arrived before Constantina; and on
the 13th the town was taken with a severe loss, including
Damrémont. Marshal Vallée succeeded Damrémont as governor. The
fall of Constantina destroyed the last relic of the old
Turkish government. ... By the 27th January, 1838, 100 tribes
had submitted to the French. A road was cleared in April by
General Negrier from Constantina to Stora on the sea. This
road, passing by the camps of Smendou and the Arrouch, was 22
leagues in length. The coast of the Bay of Stora, on the site
of the ancient Rusicada, became covered with French settlers:
and Philippeville was founded Oct. 1838, threatening to
supplant Bona. Abd-el-Kader advancing in December 1837 to the
province of Constantina, the French advanced also to observe
him; then both retired, without coming to blows. A
misunderstanding which arose respecting the second article of
the treaty of Taafna was settled in the beginning of 1838. ...
When Abd-el-Kader assumed the royal title of Sultan and the
command of a numerous army, the French, with republican
charity and fraternal sympathy, sought to infringe the Taafna
treaty, and embroil the Arab hero, in order to ruin his rising
empire, and found their own on its ashes. The Emir had been
recognised by the whole country, from the gates of Ouchda to
the river Mijerda. ... The war was resumed, and many French
razzias took place. They once marched a large force from
Algiers on Milianah to surprise the sultan's camp. They failed
in their chief object, but nearly captured the sultan himself.
He was surrounded in the middle of a French square, which
thought itself sure of the reward of 100,000 francs (£4,000)
offered for him; but uttering his favourite 'en-shallah' (with
the will of God), he gave his white horse the spur, and came
over their bayonets unwounded. He lost, however, thirty of his
bodyguard and friends, but killed six Frenchmen with his own
hand. Still, notwithstanding his successes, Abd-el-Kader had
been losing all his former power, as his Arabs, though brave,
could not match 80,000 French troops, with artillery and all
the other ornaments of civilised warfare. Seven actions were
fought at the Col de Mouzaia, where the Arabs were overthrown
by the royal dukes, in 1841; and at the Oued Foddha, where
Changarnier, with a handful of troops, defeated a whole
population in a frightful gorge. It was on this occasion that,
having no guns, he launched his Chasseurs d'Afrique against
the fort, saying, 'Voilà mon artillerie!' Abd-el·Kader had
then only two chances,--the support of Muley-Abd-er-Rahman,
Emperor of Morocco; or the peace that the latter might
conclude with France for him. General Bugeaud, who had
replaced Marshal Vallée, organised a plan of campaign by
movable columns radiating from Algiers, Oran, and Constantina;
and having 100,000 excellent soldiers at his disposal, the
results as against the Emir were slowly but surely effective.
{268}
General Negrier at Constantina, Changarnier amongst the
Hadjouts about Medeah and Milianah, Cavaignae and Lamoricière
in Oran,--carried out the commander-in-chiefs instructions
with untiring energy and perseverance; and in the spring of
1843 the Duc d'Aumale, in company with General Changarnier,
surprised the Emir's camp in the absence of the greatest part
of his force, and it was with difficulty that he himself
escaped. Not long afterwards he took refuge in Morocco,
excited the fanatical passions of the populace of that empire,
and thereby forced its ruler, Muley-Abd-er-Rahman, much
against his own inclination, into a war with France; a war
very speedily terminated by General Bugeaud's victory of Isly,
with some slight assistance from the bombardment of Tangier
and Mogador by the Prince de Joinville. In 1845 the struggle
was maintained amidst the hills by the partisans of
Abd-el-Kader; but our limits prevent us from dwelling on its
particulars, save in one instance. ... On the night of the
12th of June, 1845, about three months before Marshal Bugeaud
left Algeria, Colonels Pelissier and St. Arnaud, at the head
of a considerable force, attempted a razzia upon the tribe of
the Beni-Oulell-Hiah, numbering, in men, women, and children,
about 700 persons. This was in the Dahra. The Arabs escaped
the first clutch of their pursuers; and when hard pressed, as
they soon were, took refuge in the cave of Khartani, which had
some odour of sanctity about it: some holy man or marabout had
lived and died there, we believe. The French troops came up
quickly to the entrance, and the Arabs were summoned to
surrender. They made no reply. Possibly they did not hear the
summons. ... As there was no other outlet from the cave than
that by which the Arabs entered, a few hours' patience must
have been rewarded by the unconditional surrender of the
imprisoned tribe. Colonels Pelissier and St. Arnaud were
desirous of a speedier result; and by their order an immense
fire was kindled at the mouth of the cave, and fed sedulously
during the summer night with wood, grass, reeds, anything that
would help to keep up the volume of smoke and flame which the
wind drove, in roaring, whirling eddies, into the mouth of the
cavern. It was too late now for the unfortunate Arabs to offer
to surrender; the discharge of a cannon would not have been
heard in the roar of that huge blast-furnace, much less
smoke-strangled cries of human agony. The fire was kept up
throughout the night; and when the day had fully dawned, the
then expiring embers were kicked aside, and as soon as a
sufficient time had elapsed to render the air of the silent
cave breathable, some soldiers were directed to ascertain how
matters were, within. They were gone but a few minutes; and
they came back, we are told, pale, trembling, terrified,
hardly daring, it seemed, to confront the light of day. No
wonder they trembled and looked pale. They had found all the
Arabs dead--men, women, children. ... St. Arnaud and Pelissier
were rewarded by the French minister; and Marshal Soult
observed, that 'what would be a crime against civilisation in
Europe might be a justifiable necessity in Africa.' ... A
taste of French bayonets at Isly, and the booming of French
guns at Mogador, had brought Morocco to reason. ... Morocco
sided with France, and threatened Abel-el-Kader, who cut one
of their corps to pieces, and was in June on the point of
coming to blows with Muley-Abd-el-Rahman, the emperor. But the
Emperor of Morocco took vigorous measures to oppose him,
nearly exterminating the tribes friendly to him; which drew
off many partisans from the Emir, who tried to pacify the
emperor, but unsuccessfully." In December, 1846, "he asked to
negotiate, offered to surrender; and after 24 hours'
discussion he came to Sidi Brahim, the scene of his last
exploits against the French, where he was received with
military honours, and conducted to the Duke of Aumale at
Nemours. France has been severely abused for the detention of
Abd-el-Kader in Ham."
J. R. Morell, Algeria, chapter 22.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1881.
Tunis brought under the protectorate of France.
See FRANCE: A. D.1875-1889.
----------BARBARY STATES: End----------
BARBES.--BARBETS.
The elders among the early Waldenses were called barbes, which
signified "Uncle." Whence came the nickname Barbets, applied
to the Waldensian people generally.
E. Comba, History of the Waldenses of Italy, page 147.
BARCA.
See CYRENE.
BARCELONA: A. D. 713.
Surrender to the Arab-Moors.

See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.
BARCELONA: A. D. 1151.
The County joined to Aragon.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.
BARCELONA: 12th-16th Centuries.
Commercial prosperity and municipal freedom.
"The city of Barcelona, which originally gave its name to the
county of which it was the capital, was distinguished from a
very early period by ample municipal privileges. After the
union with Aragon in the 12th century, the monarchs of the
latter kingdom extended towards it the same liberal
legislation; so that, by the 13th, Barcelona had reached a
degree of commercial prosperity rivalling that of any of the
Italian republics. She divided with them the lucrative
commerce with Alexandria; and her port, thronged with
foreigners from every nation, became a principal emporium in
the Mediterranean for the spices, drugs, perfumes, and other
rich commodities of the East, whence they were diffused over
the interior of Spain and the European continent. Her consuls,
and her commercial factories, were established in every
considerable port in the Mediterranean and in the north of
Europe. The natural products of her soil, and her various
domestic fabrics, supplied her with abundant articles of
export. Fine wool was imported by her in considerable
quantities from England in the 14th and 15th centuries, and
returned there manufactured into cloth; an exchange of
commodities the reverse of that existing between the two
nations at the present day. Barcelona claims the merit of
having established the first bank of exchange and deposit in
Europe, in 1401; it was devoted to the accommodation of
foreigners as well as of her own citizens. She claims the
glory, too, of having compiled the most ancient written code,
among the moderns, of maritime law now extant, digested from
the usages of commercial nations, and which formed the basis
of the mercantile jurisprudence of Europe during the Middle
Ages. The wealth which flowed in upon Barcelona, as the result
of her activity and enterprise, was evinced by her numerous
public works, her docks, arsenal, warehouses, exchange,
hospitals, and other constructions of general utility.
Strangers, who visited Spain in the 14th and 15th centuries,
expatiate on the magnificence of this city, its commodious
private edifices, the cleanliness of its streets and public
squares (a virtue by no means usual in that day), and on the
amenity of its gardens and cultivated environs.
{269}
But the peculiar glory of Barcelona was the freedom of her
municipal institutions. Her government consisted of a senate
or council of one hundred, and a body of regidores or
counsellors, as they were styled, varying at times from four
to six in number; the former intrusted with the legislative,
the latter with the executive functions of administration. A
large proportion of these bodies were selected from the
merchants, tradesmen, and mechanics of the city. They were
invested not merely with municipal authority, but with many of
the rights of sovereignty. They entered into commercial
treaties with foreign powers; superintended the defence of the
city in time of war; provided for the security of trade;
granted letters of reprisal against any nation who might
violate it; and raised and appropriated the public moneys for
the construction of useful works, or the encouragement of such
commercial adventures as were too hazardous or expensive for
individual enterprise. The counsellors, who presided over the
municipality, were complimented with certain honorary
privileges, not even accorded to the nobility. They were
addressed by the title of magnificos; were seated, with their
heads covered, in the presence of royalty; were preceded by
mace-bearers, or lictors, in their progress through the
country; and deputies from their body to the court were
admitted on the footing and received the honors of foreign
ambassadors. These, it will be recollected, were
plebeians,--merchants and mechanics. Trade never was esteemed
a degradation in Catalonia, as it came to be in Castile."
W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and
Isabella, introduction, section 2.
BARCELONA: A. D. 1640.
Insurrection.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.
BARCELONA: A. D. 1651-1652.
Siege and capture by the Spaniards.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1648-1652.
BARCELONA: A. D. 1705.
Capture by the Earl of Peterborough.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1705.
BARCELONA: A. D. 1706.
Unsuccessful siege by the French and Spaniards.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1706.
BARCELONA: A. D. 1713-1714.
Betrayal and desertion by the Allies.
Siege, capture and massacre by French and Spaniards.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.
BARCELONA: A. D. 1842.
Rebellion and bombardment.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.
----------BARCELONA: End----------
BARCELONA, Treaty of.
See ITALY: A.D. 1527-1529.
BARCIDES, OR BARCINE FAMILY, The.
The family of the great Carthaginian, Hamilcar Barca, father
of the more famous Hannibal. The surname Barca, or Barcas,
given to Hamilcar, is equivalent to the Hebrew Barak and
signified lightning.
R. B. Smith, Carthage and the Carthagenians, chapter 7.
BARDS.
See FILI.
BARDULIA, Ancient Cantabria.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230.
BARÉ, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
BAREBONES PARLIAMENT, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
BARERE AND THE COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC SAFETY.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-JUNE); (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
TO 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).
BARKIAROK, Seljouk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1092-1104.
BARMECIDES, OR BARMEKIDES, The.
The Barmecides, or Barmekides, famous in the history of the
Caliphate at Bagdad, and made familiar to all the world by the
stories of the "Arabian Nights," were a family which rose to
great power and wealth under the Caliph Haroun Alraschid. It
took its name from one Khaled ibn Barmek, a Persian, whose
father had been the "Barmek" or custodian of one of the most
celebrated temples of the Zoroastrian faith. Khaled accepted
Mahometanism and became one of the ablest agents of the
conspiracy which overthrew the Ommiad Caliphs and raised the
Abbasides to the throne. The first of the Abbaside Caliphs
recognized his ability and made him vizier. His son Yahya
succeeded to his power and was the first vizier of the famous
Haroun Alraschid. But it was Jaafar, one of the sons of Yahya,
who became the prime favorite of Haroun and who raised the
family of the Barmecides to its acme of splendor. So much
greatness in a Persian house excited wide jealousy, however,
among the Arabs, and, in the end, the capricious lord and
master of the all powerful vizier Jaafar turned his heart
against him, and against all his house. The fall of the
Barmecides was made as cruel as their advancement had been
unscrupulous. Jaafar was beheaded without a moment's warning;
his father and brother were imprisoned, and a thousand members
of the family are said to have been slain.
R. D. Osborn, Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad,
part 2, chapter 2.
ALSO IN: E. H. Palmer, Haroun Alraschid, chapter 3.
BARNABITES.--PAULINES.
"The clerks-regular of St. Paul (Panlines), whose congregation
was founded by Antonio Maria Zacharia of Cremona and two
Milanese associates in 1532, approved by Clement VII. in 1533,
and confirmed as independent by Paul III. in 1534, in 1545
took the name of Barnabites, from the church of St. Barnabas,
which was given up to them at Milan. The Barnabites, who have
been described as the democratic wing of the Theatines,
actively engaged in the conversion of heretics, both in Italy
and in France and in that home of heresy, Bohemia."
A. W. Ward, The Counter Reformation, page 29.
BARNBURNERS.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.
BARNET, Battle of (A. D. 1471).
The decisive battle, and the last but one fought, in the "Wars
of the Roses." Edward IV., having been driven out of England
and Henry VI. reinstated by Warwick, "the King-maker," the
former returned before six months had passed and made his way
to London. Warwick hastened to meet him with an army of
Lancastrians and the two forces came together on Easter
Sunday, April 14, 1471, near Barnet, only ten miles from
London. The victory, long doubtful, was won for the white rose
of York and it was very bloodily achieved. The Earl of Warwick
was among the slain.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.
BARNEVELDT, John of, The religious persecution and death of.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.
{270}
BARON.
"The title of baron, unlike that of Earl, is a creation of the
[Norman] Conquest. The word, in its origin equivalent to
'homo,' receives under feudal institutions, like 'homo'
itself, the meaning of vassal. Homage (hominium) is the
ceremony by which the vassal becomes the man of his lord; and
the homines of the king are barons. Possibly the king's thegn
of Anglo-Saxon times may answer to the Norman baron."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 11,
section 124.
BARON, Court.
See MANORS.
BARONET.
"One approaches with reluctance the modern title of baronet.
... Grammatically, the term is clear enough; it is the
diminutive of baron: but baron is emphatically a man, the
liege vassal of the king; and baronet, therefore,
etymologically would seem to imply a a doubt. Degrees of honor
admit of no diminution: a 'damoisel' and a 'donzello' are
grammatical diminutives, but they do not lessen the rank of
the bearer; for, on the contrary, they denote the heir to the
larger honor, being attributed to none but the sons of the
prince or nobleman, who bore the paramount title. They did not
degrade, even in their etymological signification, which
baronet appears to do, and no act of parliament can remove
this radical defect. ... Independently of these
considerations, the title arose from the expedient of a needy
monarch [James I.] to raise money, and was offered for sale.
Any man, provided he were of good birth, might, 'for a
consideration,' canton his family shield with the red hand of
Ulster."
R. T. Hampson, Origines Patriciæ, pages 368-369.
BARONS' WAR, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.
BARONY OF LAND.
"Fifteen acres, but in some places twenty acres."
N. H. Nicolas, Notitia Historica, page 134.
BARRIER FORTRESSES, The razing of the.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1746-1787.
BARRIER TREATIES, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1709,
and NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1713-1715.
BARROW.
A mound raised over the buried dead. "This form of memorial,
... as ancient as it has been lasting, is found in almost all
parts of the globe. Barrows, under diverse names, line the
coasts of the Mediterranean, the seats of ancient empires and
civilisations. ... They abound in Great Britain and Ireland,
differing in shape and size and made of various materials; and
are known as barrows (mounds of earth) and cairns (mounds of
stone) and popularly in some parts of England as lows, houes,
and tumps."
W. Greenwell, British Barrows, pages 1-2.
ALSO IN: Sir J. Lubbock, Prehistoric TIMES, chapter 5.
BARTENSTEIN, Treaty of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
BARWALDE, Treaty of.
See GERMANY. A. D. 1631 (JANUARY).
BASHAN.
See JEWS: ISRAEL UNDER THE JUDGES.
BASHI BOZOUK, OR BAZOUKS.
For the suppression of the revolt of 1875-77 in the Christian
provinces of the Turkish dominions (see TURKS: 1861-1876),
"besides the regular forces engaged against the Bulgarians,
great numbers of the Moslem part of the local population had
been armed by the Government and turned loose to fight the
insurgents in their own way. These irregular warriors are
called Bashi Bozouks, or Rottenheads. The term alludes to
their being sent out without regular organization and without
officers at their head."
H. O. Dwight, Turkish Life in War Time, page 15.
BASIL I. (called the Macedonian), Emperor
in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 867-886.
Basil, or Vassili, I., Grand Duke of Volodomir, A. D. 1272-1276
Basil II., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 963-1025.
Basil, or Vassili, II., Grand Prince of Moscow, A. D. 1389-1425.
Basil III. (The Blind), Grand Prince of Moscow, A. D. 1425-1462.
Basil IV., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1505-1533.
BASILEUS.
"From the earliest period of history, the sovereigns of Asia
had been celebrated in the Greek language by the title of
Basileus, or King: and since it was considered as the first
distinction among men, it was soon employed by the servile
provincials of the east in their humble address to the Roman
throne."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 13.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
BASILIAN DYNASTY, The.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.
BASILICÆ.
"Among the buildings appropriated to the public service at
Rome, none were more important than the Basilicæ. Although
their name is Greek, yet they were essentially a Roman
creation, and were used for practical purposes peculiarly
Roman,--the administration of law and the transaction of
merchants' business. Historically, considerable interest
attaches to them from their connection with the first
Christian churches. The name of Basilica was applied by the
Romans equally to all large buildings intended for the special
needs of public business. ... Generally, however, they took
the form most adapted to their purposes--a semi-circular apse
or tribunal for legal trials and a central nave, with arcades
and galleries on each side for the transaction of business.
They existed not only as separate buildings, but, also as
reception rooms attached to the great mansions of Rome. ... It
is the opinion of some writers that these private basilicæ,
and not the public edifices, served as the model for the
Christian Basilica."
R. Burn, Rome and the Campagna, introduction.
ALSO IN: A. P. Stanley, Christian Institutions,
chapter 9.
BASILIKA, The.
A compilation or codification of the imperial laws of the
Byzantine Empire promulgated A. D. 884, in the reign of Basil
I. and afterwards revised and amplified by his son, Leo VI.
G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to
1057, book 2, chapter 1, section 1.
BASING HOUSE, The Storming and Destruction of.
"Basing House [mansion of the Marquis of Winchester, near
Basingstoke, in Hampshire], an immense fortress, with a feudal
castle and a Tudor palace within its ramparts, had long been a
thorn in the side of the Parliament. Four years it had held
out, with an army within, well provisioned for years, and
blocked the road to the west. At last it was resolved to take
it: and Cromwell was directly commissioned by Parliament to
the work. Its capture is one of the most terrible and stirring
incidents of the war. After six days' constant cannonade, the
storm began at six o'clock in the morning of the 14th of
October [A. D. 1645]. After some hours of desperate fighting,
one after another its defences were taken and its garrison put
to the sword or taken. The plunder was prodigious; the
destruction of property unsparing. It was gutted, burnt, and
the very ruins carted away."
F. Harrison, Oliver Cromwell, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
S. R. Gardiner, History of the Civil War,
chapter 37 (volume 2).
Mrs. Thompson, Recollections of Literary Characters and
Celebrated Places, volume 2, chapter 1.
{271}
BASLE, Council of.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448.
BASLE, Treaties of (1795).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY),
and 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
BASOCHE.--BASOCHIENS.
"The Basoche was an association of the 'clercs du Parlement'
[Parliament of Paris]. The etymology of the name is uncertain.
... The Basoche is supposed to have been instituted in 1302,
by Philippe-le-Bel, who gave it the title of 'Royaume de la
Basoche,' and ordered that it should form a tribunal for
judging, without appeal, all civil and criminal matters that
might arise among the clerks and all actions brought against
them. He likewise ordered that the president should be called
'Roi de la Basoche,' and that the king and his subjects should
have an annual 'montre' or review. ... Under the reign of
Henry III. the number of subjects of the roi de la Basoche
amounted to nearly 10,000. ... The members of the Basoche took
upon themselves to exhibit plays in the 'Palais,' in which
they censured the public manners; indeed they maybe said to
have been the first comic authors and actors that appeared in
Paris. ...At the commencement of the Revolution, the
Basochiens formed a troop, the uniform of which was red, with
epaulettes and silver buttons; but they were afterwards
disbanded by a decree of the National Assembly."
History of Paris (London: G. B. Whittaker, 1827),
volume 2, page 106.
BASQUES, The.
"The western extremity of the Pyrenees, where France and Spain
join, gives us a locality ... where, although the towns, like
Bayonne, Pampeluna, and Bilbao, are French or Spanish, the
country people are Basques or Biscayans--Basques or Biscayans
not only in the provinces of Biscay, but in Alava, Upper
Navarre, and the French districts of Labourd and Soule. Their
name is Spanish (the word having originated in that of the
ancient Vascones), and it is not the one by which they
designate themselves; though possibly it is indirectly
connected with it. The native name is derived from the root
Eusk-; which becomes Euskara when the language, Euskkerria
when the country, and Euskaldunac when the people are spoken
of."
H. G. Latham, Ethnology of Europe, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
I. Taylor, Origin of the Aryans, chapter 4, section 4.
See, also, IBERIANS, THE WESTERN, and APPENDIX A, volume 1.
BASSANO, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER.)
BASSEIN, Treaty of (1802).
See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
BASSORAH.
See BUSSORAH.
BASTARNÆ, The. See PEUCINI.
BASTILLE, The.
"The name of Bastille or Bastel was, in ancient times, given
to any kind of erection calculated to withstand a military
force; and thus, formerly in England and on the borders of
Scotland, the term Bastel-house was usually applied to places
of strength and fancied security. Of the many Bastilles in
France that of Paris, ... which at first was called the
Bastille St-Antoine, from being erected near the suburb of
St-Antoine, retained the name longest. This fortress, of
melancholy celebrity, was erected under the following
circumstances: In the year 1356, when the English, then at war
with France, were in the neighbourhood of Paris, it was
considered necessary by the inhabitants of the French capital
to repair the bulwarks of their city. Stephen Marcel, provost
of the merchants, undertook this task, and, amongst other
defences, added to the fortifications at the eastern entrance
of the town, a gate flanked with a tower on each side." This
was the beginning of the constructions of the Bastille. They
were enlarged in 1369 by Hugh Aubriot, provost of Paris under
Charles V. He "added two towers, which, being placed opposite
to those already existing on each side of the gate, made of
the Bastille a square fort, with a tower at each of the four
angles." After the death of Charles V., Aubriot, who had many
enemies, was prosecuted for alleged crimes, "was condemned to
perpetual confinement, and placed in the Bastille, of which,
according to some historians, he was the first prisoner. After
some time, he was removed thence to Fort l'Evêque, another
prison," from which he was liberated in 1381, by the
insurrection of the Maillotins (see PARIS: A. D. 1381). "After
the insurrection of the Maillotins, in 1382, the young king,
Charles VI., still further enlarged the Bastille by adding
four towers to it, thus giving it, instead of the square form
it formerly possessed, the shape of an oblong or
parallelogram. The fortress now consisted of eight towers,
each 100 feet high, and, like the wall which united them, nine
feet thick. Four of these towers looked on the city, and four
on the suburb of St-Antoine. To increase its strength, the
Bastille was surrounded by a ditch 25 feet deep and 120 feet
wide. The road which formerly passed through it was turned on
one side. ... The Bastille was now completed (1383), and
though additions were subsequently made to it, the body of the
fortress underwent no important change. ... Both as a place of
military defence, and as a state prison of great strength, the
Bastille was, even at an early period, very formidable."
History of the Bastille
(Chambers's Miscellany, no. 132, volume 17).
For an account of the taking and destruction of the Bastille
by the people, in 1789,
See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JULY).
ALSO IN:
D. Bingham, The Bastille.
R. A. Davenport, History of the Bastile.
BASTITANI, The.
See TURDETANI.
BASUTOS, The.
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1811-1868.
BATAVIA (Java), Origin of.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.
BATAVIAN REPUBLIC, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).
{272}
BATAVIANS, OR BATAVI, The.
"The Germanic Batavi had been peacefully united with the
[Roman] Empire, not by Cæsar, but not long afterwards, perhaps
by Drusus. They were settled in the Rhine delta, that is on
the left bank of the Rhine and on the islands formed
by its arms, upwards as far at least as the Old Rhine, and so
nearly from Antwerp to Utrecht and Leyden in Zealand and
southern Holland, on territory originally Celtic--at least the
local names are predominantly Celtic; their name is still
borne by the Betuwe, the lowland between the Waal and the Leck
with the capital Noviomagus, now Nimeguen. They were,
especially compared with the restless and refractory Celts,
obedient and useful subjects, and hence occupied a distinctive
position in the aggregate, and particularly in the military
system of the Roman Empire. They remained quite free from
taxation, but were on the other hand drawn upon more largely
than any other canton in the recruiting; this one canton
furnished to the army 1,000 horsemen and 9,000 foot soldiers;
besides, the men of the imperial body-guard were taken
especially from them. The command of these Batavian divisions
was conferred exclusively on native Batavi. The Batavi were
accounted indisputably not merely as the best riders and
swimmers of the army, but also as the model of true
soldiers."
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 4.
"When the Cimbri and their associates, about a century before
our era, made their memorable onslaught upon Rome, the early
inhabitants of the Rhine island of Batavia, who were probably
Celts, joined in the expedition. A recent and tremendous
inundation had swept away their miserable homes. ... The
island was deserted of its population. At about the same
period a civil dissension among the Chatti--a powerful German
race within the Hercynian forest--resulted in the expatriation
of a portion of the people. The exiles sought a new home in
the empty Rhine island, called it 'Bet-auw,' or 'good meadow,'
and were themselves called, thenceforward, Batavi, or
Batavians."
J. L. Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic, introduction.,
section 2.
BATAVIANS: A. D. 69.
Revolt of Civilis.
"Galba [Roman Emperor], succeeding to the purple upon the
suicide of Nero, dismissed the Batavian life-guards to whom he
owed his elevation. He is murdered, Otho and Vitellius contend
for the succession, while all eyes are turned upon the eight
Batavian regiments. In their hands the scales of Empire seem
to rest. They declare for Vitellius and the civil war begins.
Otho is defeated; Vitellius acknowledged by Senate and people.
Fearing, like his predecessors, the imperious turbulence of
the Batavian legions, he, too, sends them into Germany. It was
the signal for a long and extensive revolt, which had
well-nigh overturned the Roman power in Gaul and Lower
Germany. Claudius Civilis was a Batavian of noble race, who
had served twenty-five years in the Roman armies. His Teutonic
name has perished. ... After a quarter of a century's service
he was sent in chains to Rome and his brother executed, both
falsely charged with conspiracy. ... Desire to avenge his own
wrongs was mingled with loftier motives in his breast. He knew
that the sceptre was in the gift of the Batavian soldiery. ...
By his courage, eloquence and talent for political
combinations, Civilis effected a general confederation of all
the Netherland tribes, both Celtic and German. For a brief
moment there was a united people, a Batavian commonwealth. ...
The details of the revolt [A. D. 69] have been carefully
preserved by Tacitus, and form one of his grandest and most
elaborate pictures. ... The battles, the sieges, the defeats,
the indomitable spirit of Civilis, still flaming most brightly
when the clouds were darkest around him, have been described
by the great historian in his most powerful manner. ... The
struggle was an unsuccessful one. After many victories and
many overthrows, Civilis was left alone. ... He accepted the
offer of negotiation from Cerialis [the Roman commander]. ...
A colloquy was agreed upon. The bridge across the Nabalia was
broken asunder in the middle and Cerialis and Civilis met upon
the severed sides. ... Here the story abruptly terminates. The
remainder of the Roman's narrative is lost, and upon that
broken bridge the form of the Batavian hero disappears
forever."
J. L. Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic, introduction.,
sections. 3-4.
ALSO IN: Tacitus, History, books. 4-5.
----------BATAVIANS: End----------
BATH, The Order of the.
"The present Military Order of the Bath, founded by King
George I. in the year 1725, differs so essentially from the
Knighthood of the Bath, or the custom of making Knights with
various rites and ceremonies, of which one was Bathing, that
it may almost be considered a distinct and new fraternity of
chivalry. The last Knights of the Bath, made according to the
ancient forms, were at the coronation of King Charles II.; and
from that period until the reign of the first George, the old
institution fell into total oblivion. At the latter epoch,
however, it was determined to revive, as it was termed, The
Order of the Bath, by erecting it into a regular Military
Order'; and on the 25th May, 1725, Letters Patent were issued
for that purpose. By the Statutes then promulgated, the number
of Knights, independent of the Sovereign, a Prince of the
Blood Royal, and a Great Master, was restricted to 35." It has
since been greatly increased, and the Order divided into three
classes: First Class, consisting of "Knights Grand Cross," not
to exceed 50 for military and 25 for civil service; Second
Class, consisting of "Knights Commanders," not to exceed 102
for military and 50 for civil service; Third Class,
"Companions," not to exceed 525 for military and 200 for civil
service.
Sir B. Burke, Book of Orders of Knighthood, page 104.
BATH, in Roman times.
See AQUÆ: SOLIS.
BATHS OF CARACALLA, Nero, etc.
See THERMÆ.
BATONIAN WAR, The.
A formidable revolt of the Dalmatians and Pannonians, A. D. 6,
involved the Roman Empire, under Augustus, in a serious war of
three years duration, which was called the Batonian War, from
the names of two leaders of the insurgents,--Bato the
Dalmatian, and Bato the Pannonian.
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 1.
BATOUM:
Ceded to Russia.
Declared a free port.
See TURKS: A. D. 1878.
BATTIADÆ, The.
See CYRENE.
BATTLE ABBEY.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (OCTOBER).
BATTLE ABOVE THE CLOUDS, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
BATTLE OF THE CAMEL.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.
BATTLE OF THE KEGS, The.
See PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.
{273}
BATTLE OF THE NATIONS (Leipsic).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER).
BATTLE OF THE THREE EMPERORS.
The battle of Austerlitz
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER)--was so called by
Napoleon.
BATTLES.
The battles of which account is given in this work are so
numerous that no convenience would be served by collecting
references to them under this general heading. They are
severally indexed under the names by which they are
historically known.
BAURE, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
BAUTZEN, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (MAY-AUGUST).
BAUX, Lords of; Gothic Origin of the.
The illustrious Visigothic race of the "Balthi" or "Baltha"
("the bold"), from which sprang Alaric, "continued to flourish
in France in the Gothic province of Septimania, or Languedoc,
under the corrupted appellation of Baux, and a branch of that
family afterwards settled in the kingdom of Naples."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 30, note.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
BAVARIA:
The name.
Bavaria derived its name from the Boii.
R. G. Latham, The Germania of Tacitus; Epilegomena,
section 20.
See, also, BOIANS.
The Ethnology of.
"Bavaria ... falls into two divisions; the Bavaria of the
Rhine, and the Bavaria of the Danube. In Rhenish Bavaria the
descent is from the ancient Vangiones and Nemetes, either
Germanized Gauls or Gallicized Germans, with Roman
superadditions. Afterwards, an extension of the Alemannic and
Suevic populations from the right bank of the Upper Rhine
completes the evolution of their present Germanic character.
Danubian Bavaria falls into two subdivisions. North of the
Danube the valley of the Naab, at least, was originally
Slavonic, containing an extension of the Slavonic population
of Bohemia. But disturbance and displacement began early. ...
In the third and fourth centuries, the Suevi and Alemanni
extended themselves from the Upper Rhine. ... The northwestern
parts of Bavaria were probably German from the beginning.
South of the Danube the ethnology changes. In the first place
the Roman elements increase; since Vindelicia was a Roman
province. ... Its present character has arisen from an
extension of the Germans of the Upper Rhine."
R. G. Latham, Ethnology of Europe, chapter 8.
BAVARIA: A. D. 547.
Subjection of the Bavarians to the Franks.
"It is about this period [A. D. 547] that the Bavarians first
become known in history as tributaries of the Franks; but at
what time they became so is matter of dispute. From the
previous silence of the annalists respecting this people, we
may perhaps infer that both they and the Suabians remained
independent until the fall of the Ostrogothic Empire in Italy.
The Gothic dominions were bounded on the north by Rhætia and
Noricum; and between these countries and the Thuringians, who
lived still further to the north, was the country of the
Bavarians and Suabians. Thuringia had long been possessed by
the Franks, Rhætia was ceded by Vitisges, king of Italy, and
Venetia was conquered by Theudebert [the Austrasian Frank
King]. The Bavarians were therefore, at this period, almost
surrounded by the Frankish territories. ... Whenever they may
have first submitted to the yoke, it is certain that at the
time of Theudebert's death [A. D. 547], or shortly after that
event, both Bavarians and Suabians (or Alemannians), had
become subjects of the Merovingian kings."
W. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 3.
BAVARIA: A. D. 843-962.
The ancient Duchy.
See GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.
BAVARIA: A. D. 876.
Added to the Austrian March.
See Austria: A. D. 805-1246.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1071-1178.
The Dukes of the House of Guelf.
See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES;
and SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1101.
Disastrous Crusade of Duke Welf.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1101-1102.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1125-1152.
The origin of the Electorate.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1138-1183.
Involved in the beginnings of the Guelf and Ghibelline
Conflicts.
The struggles of Henry the Proud and Henry the Lion.
See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES, and SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1156.
Separation of the Austrian March, which becomes a distinct
Duchy.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1180-1356.
The House of Wittelsbach.
Its acquisition of Bavaria and the Palatinate of the Rhine.
Loss of the Electoral Vote by Bavaria.
When, in 1180, the dominions of Henry the Lion, under the ban
of the Empire, were stripped from him (see SAXONY: A. D.
1178-1183), by the imperial sentence of forfeiture, and were
divided and conferred upon others by Frederick Barbarossa, the
Duchy of Bavaria was given to Otto, Count Palatine of
Wittelsbach. "As he claimed a descent from an ancient royal
family of Bavaria, it was alleged that, in obtaining the
sovereignty of that state, he had only in some measure
regained those rights which in former times belonged to his
ancestors."
Sir A. Halliday, Annals of the House of Hanover,
volume 1, page 276.
"Otto ... was a descendant of that Duke Luitpold who fell in
combat with the Hungarians, and whose sons and grandsons had
already worn the ducal cap of Bavaria. No princely race in
Europe is of such ancient extraction. ... Bavaria was as yet
destitute of towns: Landshutt and Munich first rose into
consideration in the course of the 13th century; Ratisbon,
already a flourishing town, was regarded as the capital and
residence of the Dukes of Bavaria. ... A further accession of
dignity and power awaited the family in 1214 in the
acquisition of the Palatinate of the Rhine. Duke Ludwig was
now the most powerful prince of Southern Germany. ... His son
Otto the Illustrious, remaining ... true to the imperial
house, died excommunicate, and his dominions were placed for
several years under an interdict. ... Upon the death of Otto a
partition of the inheritance took place. This partition became
to the family an hereditary evil, a fatal source of quarrel
and of secret or open enmity. ... In [the] dark and dreadful
period of interregnum [see GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272], when all
men waited for the final dissolution of the empire, nothing
appears concerning the Wittelsbach family. ... Finally in 1273
Rudolf, the first of the Hapsburgs, ascended the
long-unoccupied throne. ... He won over the Bavarian princes
by bestowing his daughters upon them in marriage.
{274}
Louis remained faithful and rendered him good
service; but the turbulent Henry, who had already made war
upon his brother for the possession of the electoral vote,
deserted him, and for this Bavaria was punished by the loss of
the vote, and of the territory above the Enns." Afterwards,
for a time, the Duke of Bavaria and the Count Palatine
exercised the right of the electoral vote alternately; but in
1356 by the Golden Bull of Charles IV. [see GERMANY: A. D.
1347-1493], the vote was given wholly to the Count Palatine,
and lost to Bavaria for nearly 300 years.
J. I. von Döllinger, The House of Wittelsbach (Studies
in European History, chapter 2).
BAVARIA: A. D. 1314.
Election of Louis to the imperial throne.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1500.
Formation of the Circle.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1610.
The Duke at the head of the Catholic League.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1619.
The Duke in command of the forces of the Catholic League.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1623.
Transfer to the Duke of the Electoral dignity of the Elector
Palatine.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1632.
Occupation by Gustavus Adolphus.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1646-1648.
Ravaged by the Swedes and French.
Truce made and renounced by the Elector.
The last campaigns of the war.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1648.
Acquisition of the Upper Palatinate in the Peace of
Westphalia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1686.
The League of Augsburg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1689-1696.
The war of the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690; 1689-1691; 1692; 1693 (JULY);
1694; 1695-1696.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1700.
Claims of the Electoral Prince on the Spanish Crown.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1702.
The Elector joins France against the Allies.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1702.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1703.
Successes of the French and Bavarians.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1703.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1704.
Ravaged, crushed and surrendered by the Elector.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1705.
Dissolution of the Electorate.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1705.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1714.
The Elector restored to his Dominions.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1740.
Claims of the Elector to the Austrian succession.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 (OCTOBER).
BAVARIA: A. D. 1742.
The Elector crowned Emperor.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (OCTOBER).
BAVARIA: A. D. 1743 (April).
The Emperor-Elector recovers his Electoral territory.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER), and 1743.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1743 (June).
The Emperor-Elector again a fugitive.
The Austrians in Possession.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1745.
Death of the Emperor-Elector.
Peace with Austria.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1748.
Termination and results of the war of the Austrian Succession.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1767.
Expulsion of the Jesuits.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1777-1779.
The Succession question.
"With the death of Maximilian Joseph, of Bavaria (30 December,
1777), the younger branch of the house of Wittelsbach became
extinct, and the electorate of Bavaria ... came to an end. By
virtue of the original partition in 1310, the duchy of Bavaria
ought to pass to the elder branch of the family, represented
by Charles Theodore, the Elector Palatine. But Joseph [the
Second, the Emperor], saw the possibility of securing valuable
additions to Austria which would round off the frontier on the
west. The Austrian claims were legally worthless. They were
based chiefly upon a gift of the Straubingen territory which
Sigismund was said to have made in 1426 to his son-in-law,
Albert of Austria, but which had never taken effect and had
since been utterly forgotten. It would be impossible to induce
the diet to recognise such claims, but it might be possible to
come to an understanding with the aged Charles Theodore, who
had no legitimate children and was not likely to feel any very
keen interest in his new inheritance. Without much difficulty
the elector was half frightened, half induced to sign a treaty
(3 January, 1778), by which he recognised the claims put
forward by Austria, while the rest of Bavaria was guaranteed
to him and his successors. Austrian troops were at once
despatched to occupy the ceded districts. The condition of
Europe seemed to assure the success of Joseph's bold venture.
... There was only one quarter from which opposition was to be
expected, Prussia. Frederick promptly appealed to the
fundamental laws of the Empire, and declared his intention of
upholding them with arms. But he could find no supporters
except those who were immediately interested, the elector of
Saxony, whose mother, as a sister of the late elector of
Bavaria, had a legal claim to his allodial property, and
Charles of Zweibrücken, the heir apparent of the childless
Charles Theodore. ... Frederick, left to himself, despatched
an army into Bohemia, where the Austrian troops had been
joined by the emperor in person. But nothing came of the
threatened hostilities. Frederick was unable to force on a
battle, and the so-called war was little more than an armed
negotiation. ... France and Russia undertook to mediate, and
negotiations were opened in 1779 at Teschen, where peace was
signed on the 13th of May. Austria withdrew the claims which
had been recognised in the treaty with the Elector Palatine,
and received the 'quarter of the Inn,' i. e., the district
from Passau to Wildshut. Frederick's eventual claims to the
succession in the Franconian principalities of Anspach and
Baireuth, which Austria had every interest in opposing, were
recognised by the treaty. The claims of Saxony were bought off
by a payment of 4,000,000 thalers. The most unsatisfactory
part of the treaty was that it was guaranteed by France and
Russia. ... On the whole, it was a great triumph for Frederick
and an equal humiliation for Joseph II. His schemes of
aggrandisement had been foiled."
R. Lodge, History of Modern Europe, chapter 20, section 3,
ALSO IN: T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe, book 6,
chapter 8 (volume 3).
BAVARIA: A. D. 1801-1803.
Acquisition of territory under the Treaty of Luneville.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.
{275}
BAVARIA: A. D. 1805-1806.
Aggrandized by Napoleon.
Created a Kingdom.
Joined to the Confederation of the Rhine.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806,
and 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).
BAVARIA: A. D. 1809.
The revolt in the Tyrol.
Heroic struggle of Hofer and his countrymen.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809-1810 (APRIL-FEBRUARY).
BAVARIA: A. D. 1813.
Abandonment of Napoleon and the Rhenish Confederation.
Union with the Allies.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and
(OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
BAVARIA: A. D. 1814-1815.
Restoration of the Tyrol to Austria.
Territorial compensations.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF, and FRANCE: A. D. 1814
(APRIL-JUNE).
BAVARIA: A. D. 1848 (March).
Revolutionary outbreak.
Expulsion of Lola Montez.
Abdication of the King.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH).
BAVARIA: A. D. 1866.
The Seven Weeks War.
Indemnity and territorial cession to Prussia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1870-1871.
Treaty of Union with the Germanic Confederation, soon
transformed into the German Empire.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER), and 1871.
----------BAVARIA: End----------
BAVAY, Origin of.
See NERVII.
BAXAR, OR BAKSAR, OR BUXAR, Battle of (1764).
See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.
BAYARD, The Chevalier: His knightly deeds and his death.
See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504,
and FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.
BAYEUX TAPESTRY.
A remarkable roll of mediæval tapestry, 214 feet long and 20
inches wide, preserved for centuries in the cathedral at
Bayeux, Normandy, on which a pictorial history of the Norman
invasion and conquest of England is represented, with more or
less of names and explanatory inscriptions. Mr. E. A.
Freeman (Norman Conquest, volume 3, note A) says: "It will be
seen that, throughout this volume, I accept the witness of the
Bayeux Tapestry as one of my highest authorities. I do not
hesitate to say that I look on it as holding the first place
among the authorities on the Norman side. That it is a
contemporary work I entertain no doubt whatever, and I
entertain just as little doubt as to its being a work fully
entitled to our general confidence. I believe the tapestry to
have been made for Bishop Odo, and to have been most probably
designed by him as an ornament for his newly rebuilt cathedral
church of Bayeux." The precious tapestry is now preserved in
the public library at Bayeux, carefully stretched round the
room under glass.
BAYEUX, The Saxons of.
See SAXONS OF BAYEUX
BAYLEN, Battle of (1808).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).
BAYOGOULAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
BAYONNE:
Conference of Catharine de'Medici and the Duke of Alva (1565).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.
BAZAINE'S SURRENDER AT METZ.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST), (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER),
and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
BEACONSFIELD (Disraeli) Ministries.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852; 1858-1859; 1868-1870, and
1873-1880.
BEAR FLAG, The.
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.
BEARN: The rise of the Counts.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.
BEARN: A. D. 1620.
Absorbed and incorporated in the Kingdom of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.
BEARN: A. D. 1685.
The Dragonnade.
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.
----------BEARN: End----------
BEATOUN, Cardinal, The assassination of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1546.
BEAUFORT, N. C., Capture of, by the National forces (1862).
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL:
NORTH CAROLINA).
BEAUGÉ, Battle of.
The English commanded by the Duke of Clarence, defeated in
Anjou by an army of French and Scots, under the Dauphin of
France; the Duke of Clarence slain.
BEAUMARCHAIS'S TRANSACTIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1778.
BEAUMONT, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
BEAUREGARD, General G. T.
Bombardment of Fort Sumter.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MARCH-APRIL).
At the first Battle of Bull Run.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JULY: VIRGINIA).
Command in the Potomac district.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-
APRIL: VIRGINIA).
Command in the West.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL:

TENNESSEE), and (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE--MISSISSIPPI).
The Defence of Charleston.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER:
SOUTH CAROLINA).
BEAUVAIS, Origin of.
See BELGÆ.
BEBRYKIANS, The.
See BITHYNIANS.
BEC, Abbey of.
One of the most famous abbeys and ecclesiastical schools of
the middle ages. Its name was derived from the little beck or
rivulet of a valley in Normandy, on the banks of which a pious
knight, Herlouin, retiring from the world, had fixed his
hermitage. The renown of the piety of Herlouin drew others
around him and resulted in the formation of a religious
community with himself at its head. Among those attracted to
Herlouin's retreat were a noble Lombard scholar, Lanfranc of
Pavia, who afterwards became the great Norman archbishop of
Canterbury, and Anselm of Aosta, another Italian, who
succeeded Lanfranc at Canterbury with still more fame. The
teaching of Lanfranc at Bec raised it, says Mr. Green in
his Short History of the English People, into the most
famous school of Christendom; it was, in fact, the first wave
of the intellectual movement which was spreading from Italy to
the ruder countries of the West. The fabric of the canon law
and of mediaeval scholasticism, with the philosophical
skepticism which first awoke under its influence, all trace
their origin to Bec. "The glory of Bec would have been as
transitory as that of other monastic houses, but for the
appearance of one illustrious man [Lanfranc] who came to be
enrolled as a private member of the brotherhood, and who gave
Bec for a while a special and honorable character with which
hardly any other monastery in Christendom could compare."
E. A. Freeman, Norman Conquest, chapter 8.
{276}
BECHUANAS, The.
See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;
and AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.
BECKET, Thomas, and King Henry II.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.
BED-CHAMBER QUESTION, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1837-1839.
BED OF JUSTICE.
"The ceremony by which the French kings compelled the
registration of their edicts by the Parliament was called a
'lit de justice' [bed of justice]. The monarch proceeded in
state to the Grand Chambre, and the chancellor, having taken
his pleasure, announced that the king required such and such a
decree to be entered on their records in his presence. It was
held that this personal interference of the sovereign
suspended for the time being the functions of all inferior
magistrates, and the edict was accordingly registered without
a word of objection. The form of registration was as follows:
'Le roi séant en son lit de justice a ordonné et ordonne que
les présents édits seront enregistrés;' and at the end of the
decree, 'Fait en Parlement, le roi y séant en son lit de
justice.'"
Students' History of France, note to chapter 19.
See, also, PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.
"The origin of this term ['bed of justice'] has been much
discussed. The wits complained it was so styled because there
justice was put to sleep. The term was probably derived from
the arrangement of the throne on which the king sat. The back
and sides were made of bolsters and it was called a bed."
J. B. Perkins, France under Mazarin, volume 1, page 388,
foot-note.
An elaborate and entertaining account of a notable Bed of
Justice held under the Regency, in the early part of the reign
of Louis XV., will be found in the
Memoirs of the Duke de Saint Simon, abridged translation
of St. John, volume 4, chapter 5-7.
BEDR, Battle of.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
BEDRIACUM, Battles of.
See ROME: A. D. 69.
BEECHY HEAD, Battle of (A. D. 1690).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1690 (JUNE).
BEEF-EATERS, The.
See YEOMEN OF THE GUARD.
BEEF STEAK CLUB, The.
See CLUBS: THE BEEF STEAK.
BEER-ZATH, Battle of.
The field on which the great Jewish soldier and patriot, Judas
Maccabæus, having but 800 men with him, was beset by an army
of the Syrians and slain, B. C. 161.
Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12, chapter 11.
ALSO IN: H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 5, section 2.
BEG.
A Turkish title, signifying prince or lord; whence, also, Bey.
See BEY.
BEGGARS (Gueux) of the Netherland Revolt.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.
BEGGARS OF THE SEA.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572.
BEGUINES, OR BEGHINES.--BEGHARDS.
Weaving Brothers.
Lollards.
Brethren of the Free Spirit.
Fratricelli.
Bizochi.
Turlupins.
"In the year 1180 there lived in Liege a certain kindly,
stammering priest, known from his infirmity as Lambert le
Bègue. This man took pity on the destitute widows of the town.
Despite the impediment in his speech, he was, as often
happens, a man of a certain power and eloquence in preaching.
... This Lambert so moved the hearts of his hearers that gold
and silver poured in on him, given to relieve such of the
destitute women of Liege as were still of good and pious life.
With the moneys thus collected, Lambert built a little square
of cottages, with a church in the middle and a hospital, and
at the side a cemetery. Here he housed these homeless widows,
one or two in each little house, and then he drew up a half
monastic rule which was to guide their lives. The rule was
very simple, quite informal: no vows, no great renunciation
bound the 'Swestrones Brod durch Got.' A certain time of the
day was set apart for prayer and pious meditation; the other
hours they spent in spinning or sewing, in keeping their
houses clean, or they went as nurses in time of sickness into
the homes of the townspeople. ... Thus these women, though
pious and sequestered, were still in the world and of the
world. ... Soon we find the name' Swestrones Brod durch Got'
set aside for the more usual title of Beguines or Beghines.
Different authorities give different origins of this word. ...
Some have thought it was taken in memory of the founder, the
charitable Lambert le Bègut. Others think that, even as the
Mystics or Mutterers, the Lollards or Hummers, the Popelhards
or Babblers, so the Beguines or Stammerers were thus nicknamed
from their continual murmuring in prayer. This is plausible;
but not so plausible as the suggestion of Dr. Mosheim and M.
Auguste Jundt, who derive the word Beguine from the Flemish
word 'beggen,' to beg. For we know that these pious women had
been veritable beggars; and beggars should they again become.
With surprising swiftness the new order spread through the
Netherlands and into France and Germany. ... Lambert may have
lived to see a beguinage in every great town within his ken;
but we hear no more of him. The Beguines are no longer for
Liege, but for all the world. Each city possessed its quiet
congregation; and at any sick-bed you might meet a woman clad
in a simple smock and a great veil-like mantle, who lived only
to pray and do deeds of mercy. ... The success of the Beguines
had made them an example. ... Before St. Francis and St.
Dominic instituted the mendicant orders, there had silently
grown up in every town of the Netherlands a spirit of
fraternity, not imposed by any rule, but the natural impulse
of a people. The weavers seated all day long alone at their
rattling looms, the armourers beating out their thoughts in
iron, the cross-legged tailors and busy cobblers thinking and
stitching together--these men silent, pious, thoughtful,
joined themselves in a fraternity modelled on that of the
Beguines. They were called the Weaving Brothers. Bound by no
vows and fettered by no rule, they still lived the worldly
life and plied their trade for hire. Only in their leisure
they met together and prayed and dreamed and thought. ... Such
were the founders of the great fraternity of 'Fratres
Textores,' or Beghards as in later years the people more
generally called them."
A. M. F. Robinson, The End of the Middle Ages, 1.
{277}
"The Lollards differed from the Beghards less in reality than
in name. We are informed respecting them that, at their origin
in Antwerp, shortly after 1300, they associated together for
the purpose of waiting upon patients dangerously sick, and
burying the dead. ... Very early, however, an element of a
different kind began to work in those fellowships. Even about
the close of the 13th century irregularities and extravagances
are laid to their charge. .... The charges brought against the
later Beghards and Lollards, in connection, on the one hand,
with the fanatical Franciscans, who were violently contending
with the Church, and on the other, with the Brethren and
Sisters of the Free Spirit, relate to three particulars, viz.,
an a version to all useful industry, conjoined with a
propensity to mendicancy and idleness, an intemperate spirit
of opposition to the Church, and a skeptical and more or less
pantheistical mysticism. ... They ... declared that the time
of Antichrist was come, and on all hands endeavoured to
embroil the people with their spiritual guides. Their own
professed object was to restore the pure primeval state, the
divine life of freedom, innocence, and nature. The idea they
formed of that state was, that man, being in and of himself
one with God, requires only to act in the consciousness of
this unity, and to follow unrestrained the divinely implanted
impulses and inclinations of his nature, in order to be good
and godly."
C. Ullmann, Reformers before the Reformation,
volume 2, pages 14-16.
"The names of beghards and beguines came not unnaturally to be
used for devotees who, without being members of any regular
monastic society, made a profession of religious strictness;
and thus the applications of the names to some kinds of
sectaries was easy--more especially as many of these found it
convenient to assume the outward appearance of beghards, in
the hope of disguising their differences from the church. But
on the other hand, this drew on the orthodox beghards frequent
persecutions, and many of them, for the sake of safety, were glad
to connect themselves as tertiaries with the great mendicant
orders. ... In the 14th century, the popes dealt hardly with
the beghards; yet orthodox societies under this name still
remained in Germany; and in Belgium, the country of their
origin, sisterhoods of beguines flourish to the present day.
... Matthias of Janow, the Bohemian reformer, in the end of
the 14th century, says that all who act differently from the
profane vulgar are called beghardi or turlupini, or by other
blasphemous names. ... Among those who were confounded with
the beghards--partly because, like them, they abounded along
the Rhine--were the brethren and sisters of the Free Spirit.
These appear in various places under various names. They wore
a peculiarly simple dress, professed to give themselves to
contemplation, and, holding that labour is a hindrance to
contemplation and to the elevation of the soul to God, they
lived by beggary. Their doctrines were mystical and almost
pantheistic. ... The brethren and sisters of the Free Spirit
were much persecuted, and probably formed a large proportion
of those who were burnt under the name of beghards."
J. C. Robertson, History of Christian Church,
book 7, chapter 7 (volume 6).
"Near the close of this century [the 13th] originated in Italy
the Fratricelli and Bizochi, parties that in Germany and
France were denominated Beguards; and which, first Boniface
VIII., and afterwards other pontiffs condemned, and wished to
see persecuted by the Inquisition and exterminated in every
possible way. The Fratricelli, who also called themselves in
Latin 'Fratres parvi' (Little Brethren), or 'Fraterculi de
paupere vita' (Little Brothers of the Poor Life), were
Franciscan monks, but detached from the great family of
Franciscans; who wished to observe the regulations prescribed
by their founder St. Francis more perfectly than the others,
and therefore possessed no property, either individually or
collectively, but obtained their necessary food from day to
day by begging. ... They predicted a reformation and
purification of the church. ... They extolled Celestine V. as
the legal founder of their sect; but Boniface and the
succeeding pontiffs, who opposed the Fratricelli, they denied
to be true pontiffs. As the great Franciscan family had its
associates and dependents, who observed the third rule
prescribed by St. Francis [which required only certain pious
observances, such as fasts, prayers, continence, a coarse,
cheap dress, gravity of manners, &c., but did not prohibit
private property, marriage, public offices, and worldly
occupations], and who were usually called Tertiarii, so also
the sect of the Fratricelli ... had numerous Tertiarii of its
own. These were called, in Italy, Bizochi and Bocasoti; in
France Beguini; and in Germany Beghardi, by which name all the
Tertiarii were commonly designated. These differed from the
Fratricelli ... only in their mode of life. The Fratricelli
were real monks, living under the rule of St. Francis; but the
Bizochi or Beguini lived in the manner of other people. ...
Totally different from these austere Beguini and Beguinæ, were
the German and Belgic Beguinæ, who did not indeed originate in
this century, but now first came into notice. ... Concerning
the Turlupins, many have written; but none accurately. ... The
origin of the name, I know not; but I am able to prove from
substantial documents, that the Turlupins who were burned at
Paris, and in other parts of France were no other than the
Brethren of the Free Spirit whom the pontiffs and councils
condemned."
J. L. Von Mosheim, Inst's of Ecclesiastical History,
book 3, century 13, part 2, chapter 2, section 39-41,
and chapter 5, section 9, foot-note.
ALSO IN: L. Mariotti (A. Gallenga), Fra Dolcino and his
Times.
See, also, PICARDS.
BEGUMS OF OUDE, Warren Hastings and the.
See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.
BEHISTUN, Rock of.
"This remarkable spot, lying on the direct route between
Babylon and Ecbatana, and presenting the unusual combination
of a copious fountain, a rich plain and a rock suitable for
sculpture, must have early attracted the attention of the
great monarchs who marched their armies through the Zagros
range, as a place where they might conveniently set up
memorials of their exploits. ... The tablet and inscriptions
of Darius, which have made Behistun famous in modern times,
are in a recess to the right of the scarped face of the rock,
and at a considerable elevation."
G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Media, chapter 1.
The mountain or rock of Behistun fixes the location of the
district known to the Greeks as Bagistana. "It lies southwest
of Elvend, between that mountain and the Zagrus in the valley
of the Choaspes, and is the district now known as Kirmenshah."
M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 8, chapter 1.
BEHRING SEA CONTROVERSY, and Arbitration.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1886-1893.
{278}
BEIRUT, Origin of.
See BERYTUS.
BELA I., King of Hungary, A. D. 1060-1063.
Bela II., A. D. 1131-1141.
Bela III., A. D. 1173-1196.
Bela IV., A. D. 1235-1270.
BELCHITE, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
BELERION, OR BOLERIUM.
The Roman name of Land's End, England.
See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.
BELFORT.
Siege by the Germans (1870-1871).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.
BELGÆ, The.
"This Belgian confederation included the people of all the
country north of the Seine and Marne, bounded by the Atlantic
on the west and the Rhine on the north and east, except the
Mediomatrici and Treviri. ... The old divisions of France
before the great revolution of 1789 corresponded in some
degree to the divisions of the country in the time of Cæsar,
and the names of the people are still retained with little
alteration in the names of the chief towns or the names of the
ante-revolutionary divisions of France. In the country of the
Remi between the Marne and the Aisne there is the town of
Reims. In the territory of the Suessiones between the Marne
and the Aisne there is Soissons on the Aisne. The Bellovaci
were west of the Oise (Isara) a branch of the Seine: their
chief town, which at some time received the name of
Cæsaromagus, is now Beauvais. The Nervii were between and on
the Sambre and the Schelde. The Atrebates were north of the
Bellovaci between the Somme and the upper Schelde: their chief
place was Nemetacum or Nemetocenna, now Arras in the old
division of Artois. The Ambiani were on the Somme (Samara):
their name is represented by Amiens (Samarobriva). The Morini,
or sea-coast men extended from Boulogne towards Dunkerque. The
Menapii bordered on the northern Morini and were on both sides
of the lower Rhine (B. G. iv., 4). The Caleti were north of
the lower Seine along the coast in the Pays de Caux. The
Velocasses were east of the Caleti on the north side of the
Seine as far as the Oise; their chief town was Rotomagus
(Rouen) and their country was afterwards Vexin Normand and
Vexin Français. The Veromandui were north of the Suessiones:
their chief town under the Roman dominion, Augusta
Veromanduorum, is now St. Quentin. The Aduatuci were on the
lower Maas. The Condrusi and the others included under the
name of Germani were on the Maas, or between the Maas and the
Rhine. The Eburones had the country about Tongern and Spa, and
were the immediate neighbours of the Menapii on the Rhine."
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 3.
"Cæsar ... informs us that, in their own estimation, they [the
Belgæ] were principally descended from a German stock, the
offspring of some early migration across the Rhine. ... Strabo
... by no means concurred in Cæsar's view of the origin of
this ... race, which he believed to be Gaulish and not German,
though differing widely from the Galli, or Gauls of the central
region."
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 5.
ALSO IN: E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 1, chapter 12.
BELGÆ: B. C. 57.
Cæsar's campaign against the confederacy.
In the second year of Cæsar's command in Gaul, B. C. 57, he
led his legions against the Belgæ, whom he characterized in
his Commentaries as the bravest of all the people of Gaul. The
many tribes of the Belgian country had joined themselves in a
great league to oppose the advancing Roman power, and were
able to bring into the field no less than 290,000 men. The
tribe of the Remi alone refused to join the confederacy and
placed themselves on the Roman side. Cæsar who had quartered
his army during the winter in the country of the Sequani,
marched boldly, with eight legions, into the midst of these
swarming enemies. In his first encounter with them on the
banks of the Aisne, the Belgic barbarians were terribly cut to
pieces and were so disheartened that tribe after tribe made
submission to the proconsul as he advanced. But the Nervii,
who boasted a Germanic descent, together with the Aduatuci,
the Atrebates and the Veromandui, rallied their forces for a
struggle to the death. The Nervii succeeded in surprising the
Romans, while the latter were preparing their camp on the
banks of the Sambre, and very nearly swept Cæsar and his
veterans off the field, by their furious and tremendous
charge. But the energy and personal influence of the one, with
the steady discipline of the other, prevailed in the end over
the untrained valour of the Nervii, and the proud nation was
not only defeated but annihilated. "Their eulogy is preserved
in the written testimony of their conqueror; and the Romans
long remembered, and never failed to signalize their
formidable valour. But this recollection of their ancient
prowess became from that day the principal monument of their
name and history, for the defeat they now sustained well nigh
annihilated the nation. Their combatants were cut off almost
to a man. The elders and the women, who had been left in
secure retreats, came forth of their own accord to solicit the
conqueror's clemency. ... 'Of 600 senators,' they said, 'we
have lost all but three; of 60,000 fighting men 500 only
remain.' Cæsar treated the survivors with compassion."
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
Julius Cæsar, Gallic Wars, book 2.
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 3.
Napoleon III., History of Cæsar, book 3, chapter 5.
BELGÆ OF BRITAIN, The.
Supposed to be a colony from the Belgæ of the continent. The
territory which they occupied is now embraced in the counties
of Wiltshire and Somerset.
See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.
BELGIUM: Ancient and Mediaeval History.
See BELGÆ, NERVII, FRANKS, LORRAINE, FLANDERS, LIEGE.
NETHERLANDS.
BELGIUM: Modern History.
See NETHERLANDS.
BELGRADE:
Origin.
During the attacks of the Avars upon the territory of the
Eastern Empire, in the last years of the 6th century, the city
of Singidunum, at the junction of the Save with the Danube,
was taken and totally destroyed. The advantageous site of the
extinct town soon attracted a colony of Sclavonians, who
raised out of the ruins a new and strongly fortified city--the
Belgrade, or the White City of later times. "The Sclavonic
name of Belgrade is mentioned in the 10th century by
Constantine Porphyorgenitus: the Latin appellation of Alba
Græca is used by the Franks in the beginning of the 9th."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 46, note.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
BELGIUM: A. D. 1425.
Acquired by Hungary and fortified against the Turks.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.
{279}
BELGIUM: A. D. 1442.
First repulse of the Turks.
See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.
BELGIUM: A. D. 1456.
Second repulse of the Turks.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458;
and TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1451-1481.
BELGIUM: A. D. 1521.
Siege and capture by Solyman the Magnificent.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.
BELGIUM: A. D. 1688-1690.
Taken by the Austrians and recovered by the Turks.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.
BELGIUM: A. D. 1717.
Recovery from the Turks.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.
BELGIUM: A. D. 1739.
Restored to the Turks.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
BELGIUM: A. D. 1789-1791.
Taken by the Austrians and restored to the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
BELGIUM: A. D. 1806.
Surprised and taken by the Servians.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-19TH CENTURIES
(SERVIA).
BELGIUM: A. D. 1862.
Withdrawal of Turkish troops.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-19TH CENTURIES
(SERVIA).
----------BELGIUM: End----------
BELGRADE, The Peace of.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
BELIK, Battle on the (Carrhæ--B. C. 53).
See ROME: B. C. 57-52.
BELISARIUS, Campaigns of.
See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534,
and ROME: A. D. 535-553.
BELIZE, or British Honduras.
See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.
BELL ROLAND, The great.
See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.
BELLE ALLIANCE, Battle of La.
The battle of Waterloo
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE)--is so called by the
Prussians.
BELLE ISLE PRISON-PEN, The.
See PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS, CONFEDERATE.
BELLOVACI, The.
See BELGÆ.
BELLVILLE, Battle, of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).
BELMONT, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
(SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
Bema, The.
See PNYX.
BEMIS HEIGHTS, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
BENARES.
"The early history of Benares is involved in much obscurity.
It is, indisputably, a place of great antiquity, and may even
date from the time when the Aryan race first spread itself
over Northern India. ... It is certain that the city is
regarded by all Hindus as coeval with the birth of Hinduism, a
notion derived both from tradition and from their own
writings. Allusions to Benares are exceedingly abundant in
ancient Sanskrit literature; and perhaps there is no city in
all Hindustan more frequently referred to. By reason of some
subtle and mysterious charm, it has linked itself with the
religious sympathies of the Hindus through every century of
its existence. For the sanctity of its inhabitants--of its
temples and reservoirs--of its wells and streams--of the very
soil that is trodden--of the very air that is breathed--and of
everything in and around it, Benares has been famed for
thousands of years. ... Previously to the introduction of the
Buddhist faith into India, she was already the sacred city of
the land,--the centre of Hinduism, and chief seat of its
authority. Judging from the strong feelings of veneration and
affection with which the native community regard her in the
present day, and bearing in mind that the founder of Buddhism
commenced his ministry at this spot, it seems indisputable
that, in those early times preceding the Buddhist reformation,
the city must have exerted a powerful and wide-spread
religious influence over the land. Throughout the Buddhist
period in India--a period extending from 700 to 1,000
years--she gave the same support to Buddhism which she had
previously given to the Hindu faith. Buddhist works of that
era ... clearly establish the fact that the Buddhists of
those days regarded the city with much the same kind of
veneration as the Hindu does now."
M. A. Sherring, The Sacred City of the Hindus, chapter
1.
For an account of the English annexation of Benares,
See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.
BENEDICT II., Pope, A. D. 684-685.
Benedict III., Pope, A. D. 855-858.
Benedict IV., Pope, A. D. 900-903.
Benedict V., Pope, A. D. 964-965.
Benedict VI., Pope, A. D. 972-974.
Benedict VII., Pope, A. D. 975-984.
Benedict VIII., Pope, A. D. 1012-1024.
Benedict IX., Pope, A. D. 1033-1044, 1047-1048.
Benedict X., Antipope, A. D. 1058-1059.
Benedict XI., Pope, A. D. 1303-1304.
Benedict XII., Pope, A. D. 1334-1342.
Benedict XIII., Pope, A. D. 1394-1423 (at Avignon).
Benedict XIII., Pope, A. D. 1724-1730.
Benedict XIV., Pope, A. D. 1740-1758.
BENEDICTINE ORDERS.
The rule of St. Benedict.
"There were many monasteries in the West before the time of
St. Benedict of Nursia (A. D. 480); but he has been rightly
considered the father of Western monasticism; for he not only
founded an order to which many religious houses became
attached, but he established a rule for their government
which, in its main features, was adopted as the rule of
monastic life by all the orders for more than five centuries,
or until the time of St. Dominic and St. Francis of Assisi.
Benedict was first a hermit, living in the mountains of
Southern Italy, and in that region he afterwards established
in succession twelve monasteries, each with twelve monks and a
superior. In the year 520 he founded the great monastery of
Monte Casino as the mother-house of his order, a house which
became the most celebrated and powerful monastery, according
to Montalembert, in the Catholic universe, celebrated
especially because there Benedict prepared his rule and formed
the type which was to serve as a model to the innumerable
communities submitting to that sovereign code. ... Neither in
the East nor in the West were the monks originally
ecclesiastics; and it was not until the eighth century that
they became priests, called regulars, in contrast with the
ordinary parish clergy, who were called seculars. ... As
missionaries, they proved the most powerful instruments in
extending the authority and the boundaries of the church. The
monk had no individual property: even his dress belonged to
the monastery. ... To enable him to work efficiently, it was
necessary to feed him well; and such was the injunction of
Benedict, as opposed to the former practice of strict
asceticism."
C. J. Stillé, Studies in Mediæval History, chapter 12.
{280}
"Benedict would not have the monks limit themselves to
spiritual labour, to the action of the soul upon itself; he
made external labour, manual or literary, a strict obligation
of his rule. ... In order to banish indolence, which he called
the enemy of the soul, he regulated minutely the employment of
every hour of the day according to the seasons, and ordained
that, after having celebrated the praises of God seven times
a-day, seven hours a-day should be given to manual labour, and
two hours to reading. ... Those who are skilled in the
practice of an art or trade, could only exercise it by the
permission of the abbot, in all humility; and if anyone prided
himself on his talent, or the profit which resulted from it to
the house, he was to have his occupation changed until he had
humbled himself. ... Obedience is also to his eyes a work,
obedientiae laborem, the most meritorious and essential of
all. A monk entered into monastic life only to make the
sacrifice of self. This sacrifice implied especially that of
the will. ... Thus the rule pursued pride into its most secret
hiding-place. Submission had to be prompt, perfect, and
absolute. The monk must obey always, without reserve, and
without murmur, even in those things which seemed impossible
and above his strength, trusting in the succour of God, if a
humble and seasonable remonstrance, the only thing permitted
to him, was not accepted by his superiors."
The Count de Montalembert, The Monks of the West, book 4,
section 2 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
E. L. Cutts, Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,
chapter 2.
S. R. Maitland, The Dark Ages, No. 10.
J. H. Newman, Mission of St. Benedict (Hist. Sketches,
volume 2).
P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church,
volume 2, chapter 4, section 43-45.
E. F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the
Middle Ages, book 3, no. 1.
See, also, CAPUCHINS.
BENEFICIUM.--COMMENDATION.
Feudalism "had grown up from two great sources--the
beneficium, and the practice of commendation, and had been
specially fostered on Gallic soil by the existence of a
subject population which admitted of any amount of extension
in the methods of dependence. The beneficiary system
originated partly in gifts of land made by the kings out of
their own estates to their kinsmen and servants, with a
special undertaking to be faithful; partly in the surrender by
landowners of their estates to churches or powerful men, to be
received back again and held by them as tenants for rent or
service. By the latter arrangement the weaker man obtained the
protection of the stronger, and he who felt himself insecure
placed his title under the defence of the Church. By the
practice of commendation, on the other hand, the inferior put
himself under the personal care of a lord, but without
altering his title or divesting himself of his right to his
estate; he became a vassal and did homage. The placing of his
hands between those of his lord was the typical act by which
the connexion was formed."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 9,
section 93.
ALSO IN: H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 2, part 1.
See, also, SCOTLAND: 10TH-11TH CENTURIES.
BENEFIT OF CLERGY.
"Among the most important and dearly-prized privileges of the
church was that which conferred on its members immunity from
the operation of secular law, and relieved them from the
jurisdiction of secular tribunals. ... So priceless a
prerogative was not obtained without a long and resolute
struggle. ... To ask that a monk or priest guilty of crime
should not be subject to the ordinary tribunals, and that
civil suits between laymen and ecclesiastics should be
referred exclusively to courts composed of the latter, was a
claim too repugnant to the common sense of mankind to be
lightly accorded. ... The persistence of the church, backed up
by the unfailing resource of excommunication, finally
triumphed, and the sacred immunity of the priesthood was
acknowledged, sooner or later, in the laws of every nation of
Europe." In England, when Henry II. in 1164, "endeavored, in
the Constitutions of Clarendon, to set bounds to the
privileges of the church, he therefore especially attacked the
benefit of clergy. ... The disastrous result of the quarrel
between the King and the archbishop [Becket] rendered it
necessary to abandon all such schemes of reform. ... As time
passed on, the benefit of clergy gradually extended itself.
That the laity were illiterate and the clergy educated was
taken for granted, and the test of churchmanship came to be
the ability to read, so that the privilege became in fact a
free pardon on a first offence for all who knew their letters.
... Under Elizabeth, certain heinous offences were declared
felonies without benefit of clergy. ... Much legislation
ensued from time to time, effecting the limitation of the
privilege in various offences. ... Early in the reign of Anne
the benefit of clergy was extended to all malefactors by
abrogating the reading test, thus placing the unlettered felon
on a par with his better educated fellows, and it was not
until the present century was well advanced that this remnant
of mediæval ecclesiastical prerogative was abolished by 7 and
8 Geo. iv. c. 28."
H. C. Lea, Studies in Church History, part 2.
ALSO IN:
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
section 722-725 (chapter 19, page 3).
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.
BENEVENTO, OR GRANDELLA, Battle of (1266).
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.
BENEVENTUM:
The Lombard Duchy.
The Duchy of Beneventum was a Lombard fief of the 8th and 9th
centuries, in southern Italy, which survived the fall of the
Lombard kingdom in northern Italy. It covered nearly the
territory' of the modern kingdom of Naples. Charlemagne
reduced the Duchy to submission with considerable difficulty,
after he had extinguished the Lombard kingdom. It was
afterwards divided into the minor principalities of Benevento,
Salerno and Capua, and became part of the Norman conquest.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016; and 1000-1090;
also, LOMBARDS: A. D. 573-774,
and AMALFI.
BENEVENTUM, Battle of (B. C. 275).
See ROME: B. C. 282-275.
BENEVOLENCES.
"The collection of benevolences, regarded even at the time
[England, reign of Edward IV.] as an innovation, was perhaps a
resuscitated form of some of the worst measures of Edward II.
and Richard II., but the attention which it aroused under
Edward IV. shows how strange it had become under the
intervening kings. ... Such evidence as exists shows us Edward
IV. canvassing by word of mouth or by letter for direct gifts
of money from his subjects. Henry III. had thus begged for new
year's gifts. Edward IV. requested and extorted 'free-will
offerings' from everyone who could not say no to the pleadings
of such a king. He had a wonderful memory, too, and knew the
name and the particular property of every man in the country
who was worth taxing in this way. He had no excuse for such
meanness; for the estates had shown themselves liberal."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
chapter 18, section 696.
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1471-1485.
{281}
BENGAL, The English acquisition of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757; 1757; and 1757-1772.
BENGAL: "Permanent Settlement."
See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.
BENNINGTON, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
BENTINCK, Lord William, The Indian Administration of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
BENTONSVILLE, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865
(FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).
BEOTHUK, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BEOTHUKAN FAMILY.
BERBERS, The.
See LIBYANS; NUMIDIANS; EGYPT, ORIGIN OF THE ANCIENT
PEOPLE; and MAROCCO.
BERENICE, Cities of.
Ptolemy Philadelphus, the second of the Ptolemies, founded a
city on the Egyptian shore of the Red Sea, to which he gave
the name of his mother, Berenice. It became an important port
of trade. Subsequently two other cities of the same name were
founded at points further south on the same coast, while a
fourth Berenice came into existence on the border of the Great
Syrtis, in Cyrenaica.
E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography.,
chapter 15, section 1.
BERESINA, Passage of the.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
BERESTECZKO, Battle of (1651).
See POLAND: A. D. 1648-1654.
BERGEN, Battles of (1759 and 1799).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST);
and FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
BERGEN-OP-ZOOM, A. D. 1588.
The siege raised.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.
BERGEN A. D. 1622.
Unsuccessful siege by the Spaniards.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.
BERGEN: A. D. 1747-1748.
Taken by the French and restored to Holland.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747,
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.
----------BERGEN: End----------
BERGER.
See BIRGER.
BERGERAC, Peace of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1577-1578.
BERING SEA CONTROVERSY AND ARBITRATION.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1886-1893.
BERKELEY, Lord, The Jersey Grant to.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664.-1667, to 1688-1738.
BERKELEY, Sir William, Government of Virginia.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1642--1649, to 1660-1677.
BERLIN: A. D. 1631.--Forcible entry of Gustavus Adolphus.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.
BERLIN: A. D. 1675.
Threatened by the Swedes.
See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.
BERLIN: A. D. 1757.
Dashing Austrian attack.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER).
BERLIN: A. D. 1760.
Taken and plundered by the Austrians and Russians.
See GERMANY: A.D. 1760.
BERLIN: A. D. 1806.
Napoleon in possession.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER).
BERLIN: A. D. 1848.
Mistaken battle of soldiers and citizens.
Continued disorder.
State of siege.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH), and 1848-1850.
----------BERLIN: End----------
BERLIN CONFERENCE (1884-5), The.
See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889;
and CONGO FREE STATE.
BERLIN, Congress and Treaty of.
See TURKS: A. D. 1878.
BERLIN DECREE, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810;
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.
BERMUDA HUNDRED.
See HUNDRED, THE.
BERMUDA HUNDRED, Butler's Army at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(MAY: VIRGINIA), THE ARMY OF THE JAMES.
BERMUDAS, The.
English Discovery of the islands (1609).
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1609-1616.
BERMUDO,
King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 788-791.
Bermudo II., A. D. 982-999.
Bermudo III., A. D. 1027-1037.
BERN, Dietrich of.
See VERONA: A. D. 493-525.
BERNADOTTE, Career of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL);
1799 (NOVEMBER); 1806 (JANUARY-OCTOBER);
1814(JANUARY-MARCH); 1806-1807;
SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1810;
GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813; 1813 (AUGUST),
(SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
BERNARD, St., and the Second Crusade.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149.
BERNE, A. D. 1353.
Joined to the original Swiss Confederation, or Old League of
High Germany.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1332-1460.
BERNE: A. D. 1798.
Occupation by the French.
The plundering of the Treasury.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.
----------BERNE: End----------
BERNICIA, The Kingdom of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633;
and SCOTLAND: 7th CENTURY.
BERSERKER.--BÆRSÆRK.
"The word Bærsærk is variously spelt, and stated to be derived
from 'bar' and 'særk,' or 'bareshirt.' The men to whom the
title was applied [among the Northmen] ... were stated to be
in the habit of fighting without armour, and wearing only a
shirt of skins, or at times naked. In Iceland they were
sometimes called Ulfrhedin, i. e., wolfskin. The derivation of
Bærsærk has been questioned, as in philology is not uncommon.
The habit of their wearing bear (björn) skins, is said to
afford the meaning of the word. In philology, to agree to
differ is best. The Bærsærks, according to the sagas, appear
to have been men of unusual physical development and savagery.
They were, moreover, liable to what was called Bærsærkegang,
or a state of excitement in which they exhibited superhuman
strength, and then spared neither friend nor foe. ... After an
attack of Bærsærk frenzy, it was believed that the superhuman
influence or spirit left the Bærsærk's body as a 'ham,' or
cast-off shape or form, with the result that the Bærsærk
suffered great exhaustion, his natural forces being used up."
J. F. Vicary, Saga Time, chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
P. B. Du Chaillu, The Viking Age, volume 2, chapter 26.
{282}
BERWICK-UPON-TWEED: A. D. 1293-1333.
Conquest by the English.
At the beginning, in 1293, of the struggle of the Scottish
nation to cast off the feudal yoke which Edward I. had laid
upon it, the English king, marching angrily northwards, made
his first assault upon Berwick. The citizens, whose only
rampart was a wooden stockade, foolishly aggravated his wrath
by gibes and taunts. "The stockade was stormed with the loss
of a single knight, and nearly 8,000 of the citizens were mown
down in a ruthless carnage, while a handful of Flemish traders
who held the town-hall stoutly against all assailants were
burned alive in it. ... The town was ruined forever, and the
great merchant city of the North sank from that time into a
petty seaport." Subsequently recovered by the Scotch, Berwick
was held by them in 1333 when Edward III. attempted to seat
Edward Balliol, as his vassal, on the Scottish throne. The
English laid siege to the place, and an army under the regent
Douglas came to its relief. The battle of Halidon Hill, in
which the Scotch were utterly routed, decided the fate of
Berwick. "From that time the town remained the one part of
Edward's conquests which was preserved by the English crown.
Fragment as it was, it was viewed as legally representing the
realm of which it had once formed a part. As Scotland, it had
its chancellor, chamberlain, and other officers of state: and
the peculiar heading of acts of Parliament enacted for England
'and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed' still preserves the memory
of its peculiar position."-
J. R. Green, Short History of the English People,
chapter 4, section 3 and 6.
ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 17.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.
BERWICK, Pacification of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
BERWICK, Treaty of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.
BERYTUS.
The colony of Berytus (modern Beirut) was founded by Agrippa,
B. C. 15, and made a station for two legions.
BERYTUS: A. D. 551.
Its Schools.
Its Destruction by Earthquake.
The city of Berytus, modern Beirut, was destroyed by
earthquake on the 9th of July, A. D. 551. "That city, on the
coast of Phœnicia, was illustrated by the study of the civil
law, which opened the surest road to wealth and dignity: the
schools of Berytus were filled with the rising spirits of the
age, and many a youth was lost in the earthquake who might
have lived to be the scourge or the guardian of his country."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 43.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
BERYTUS: A. D. 1111.
Taken by the Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.
----------BERYTUS: End----------
BESANÇON: Origin.
See VESONTIO.
BESANÇON: A. D. 1152-1648.
A Free City of the Empire.
See FRANCHE COMTÉ.
BESANÇON: A. D. 1674.
Siege and capture by Vauban.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
BESSI, The.
The Bessi were an ancient Thracian tribe who occupied the
mountain range of Hæmus (the Balkan) and the upper valley of
the Hebrus. They were subdued by Lucullus, brother of the
conqueror of Mithridates.
E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 18, section 6.
BESSIN, The.
The district of Bayeux.
See SAXONS OF BAYEUX.
BETH-HORON, Battles of.
The victory of Joshua over "the five kings of the Amorites"
who laid siege to Gibeon; the decisive battle of the Jewish
conquest of Canaan. "The battle of Beth-horon or Gibeon is one
of the most important in the history of the world; and yet so
profound has been the indifference, first of the religious
world, and then (through their example or influence) of the
common world, to the historical study of the Hebrew annals,
that the very name of this great battle is far less known to
most of us than that of Marathon or Cannæ."
Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish
Church, lecture 11.
In the Maccabean war, Beth-horon was the scene of two of the
brilliant victories of Judas Maccabeus, in B. C. 167 and
162.
Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12.
Later, at the time of the Jewish revolt against the Romans, it
witnessed the disastrous retreat of the Roman general Cestius.
BETHSHEMESH, Battle of.
Fought by Joash, king of Israel, with Amaziah, king of Judah,
defeating the latter and causing part of the walls of
Jerusalem to be thrown down.
2 Chronicles, xxv.
BETH-ZACHARIAH, Battle of.
A defeat suffered (B. C. 163) by the Jewish patriot, Judas·
Maccabæus, at the hands of the Syrian monarch Antiochus
Eupator: the youngest of the Maccabees being slain.
Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12, chapter 9.
BETHZUR, Battle of.
Defeat of an army sent by Antiochus, against Judas Maccabæus,
the Jewish patriot, B. C. 165,
Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12, chapter 7.
BEVERHOLT, Battle of (1381).
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.
BEY.--BEYLERBEY.--PACHA.--PADISCHAH.
"The administration of the [Turkish] provinces was in the time
of Mahomet II. [the Sultan, A. D. 1451-1481, whose legislation
organized the Ottoman government] principally intrusted to the
Beys and Beylerbeys. These were the natural chiefs of the

class of feudatories [Spahis], whom their tenure of office
obliged to serve on horseback in time of war. They mustered
under the Sanjak, the banner of the chief of their district,
and the districts themselves were thence called Sanjaks, and
their rulers Sanjak-beys. The title of Pacha, so familiar to
us when speaking of a 'Turkish provincial ruler, is not
strictly a term implying territorial jurisdiction, or even
military authority. It is a title of honour, meaning literally
the Shah's or sovereign's foot, and implying that the person
to whom that title was given was one whom the sovereign
employed. ... The title of Pacha was not at first applied
among the Ottomans exclusively to those officers who commanded
armies or ruled provinces or cities. Of the five first Pachas,
that are mentioned by Ottoman writers, three were literary
men. By degrees this honorary title was appropriated to those
whom the Sultan employed in war and set over districts and
important towns; so that the word Pacha became almost
synonymous with the word governor. The title Padischah, which
the Sultan himself bears, and which the Turkish diplomatists
have been very jealous in allowing to Christian Sovereigns, is
an entirely different word, and means the great, the imperial
Schah or Sovereign. In the time of Mahomet II. the Ottoman
Empire contained in Europe alone thirty-six Sanjaks, or
banners, around each of which assembled about 400 cavaliers."
Sir E. S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, chapter
6.
{283}
BEYLAN, Battle of (1832).
See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
BEYROUT, Origin of.
See BERYTUS.
BEZANT, The.
The bezant was a Byzantine gold coin (whence its name), worth
a little less than ten English shillings--$2.50.
BEZIERES, The Massacre at.
See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1209.
BHARADARS.
See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.
BHONSLA RAJA, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
BHURTPORE, Siege of(1805).
See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
BIANCHI AND NERI (The Whites and Blacks).
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300, and 1301-1313.
BIANCHI, or White Penitents.
See WHITE PENITENTS.
BIBERACH, Battles of (1796 and 1800).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
and A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).
BIBRACTE.
See GAULS.
BIBROCI, The.
A tribe of ancient Britons who dwelt near the Thames. It is
suspected, but not known, that they gave their name to Berks
County.
BICAMERAL SYSTEM, The.
This term was applied by Jeremy Bentham to the division of a
legislative body into two chambers--such as the House of Lords
and House of Commons in England, and the Senate and House of
Representatives in the United States of America.
BICOQUE OR BICOCCA, La, Battle of (1522).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.
BIG BETHEL, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JUNE: VIRGINIA).
BIG BLACK, Battle of the.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
BIGERRIONES, The.
See AQUITAINE, THE ANCIENT TRIBES.
BIGI, OR GREYS, The.
One of the three factions which divided Florence in the time
of Savonarola, and after. The Bigi, or Greys, were the
partisans of the Medici; their opponents were the Piagnoni, or
Weepers, and the Arrabiati, or Madmen.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.
BILL OF RIGHTS.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (OCTOBER).
BILLAUD-VARENNES and the French Revolutionary Committee of Public
Safety.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER),
(SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER), to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).
BILOXIS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
BIMINI, The island of.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1512.
BIRAPARACH, Fortress of.
See JUROIPACH.
BIRGER, King of Sweden, A. D. 1290-1319.
Birger, or Berger Jarl, Regent of Sweden, A. D. 1250-1266.
BISHOPS' WAR, The First and Second.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.
BISMARCK'S MINISTRY.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866, to 1888;
and FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY); 1870-1871;
and 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).
BISSEXTILE YEAR.
See CALENDAR, JULIAN.
BITHYNIANS, THYNIANS.
"Along the coast of the Euxine, from the Thracian Bosphorus.
eastward to the river Halys, dwelt Bithynians or Thynians,
Mariandynians and Paphlagonians,--all recognized branches of
the widely extended 'l'hracian race. The Bithynians
especially, in the northwestern portion of this territory, and
reaching from the Euxine to the Propontis, are often spoken of
as Asiatic Thracians,--while on the other hand various tribes
among the Thracians of Europe are denominated Thyni or
Thynians,--so little difference was there in the population on
the two sides of the Bosphorus, alike brave, predatory, and
sanguinary. The Bithynians of Asia are also sometimes called
Bebrykians, under which denomination they extend as far
southward as the gulf of Kios in the Propontis."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 16.
The Bithynians were among the people in Asia Minor subjugated
by Crœsus, king of Lydia, and fell, with his fall, under the
Persian rule. But, in some way not clearly understood, an
independent kingdom of Bithynia was formed, about the middle
of the 5th century B. C. which resisted the Persians,
successfully resisted Alexander the Great and his successors
in Asia Minor, resisted Mithridates of Pontus, and existed
until B. C. 74, when its last king Nicomedes III. bequeathed
his kingdom to Rome and it was made a Roman province.
BITONTO, Battle of (1734).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.
BITURIGES, The.
See ÆEDUI;
also BOURGES, ORIGIN OF.
BIZOCHI, The.
See BEGUINES, ETC.
BIZYE.
See THRACIANS.
BLACK ACTS, The.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1584.
BLACK DEATH, The.
"The Black Death appears to have had its origin in the centre
of China, in or about the year 1333. It is said that it was
accompanied at its outbreak by various terrestrial and
atmospheric phænomena of a novel and most destructive
character, phænomena similar to those which characterized the
first appearance of the Asiatic Cholera, of the Influenza, and
even in more remote times of the Athenian Plague. It is a
singular fact that all epidemics of an unusually destructive
character have had their homes in the farthest East, and have
travelled slowly from those regions towards Europe. It
appears, too, that the disease exhausted itself in the place
of its origin at about the same time in which it made its
appearance in Europe. ... The disease still exists under the
name of the Levant or Oriental Plague, and is endemic in Asia
Minor, in parts of Turkey, and in Egypt. It is specifically a
disease in which the blood is poisoned, in which the system
seeks to relieve itself by suppuration of the glands, and in
which, the tissues becoming disorganized, and the blood
thereupon being infiltrated into them, dark blotches appear on
the skin.
{284}
Hence the earliest name by which the Plague was described. The
storm burst on the Island of Cyprus at the end of the year
1347, and was accompanied, we are told, by remarkable physical
phænomena, as convulsions of the earth, and a total change in
the atmosphere. Many persons affected died instantly. The
Black Death seemed, not only to the frightened imagination of
the people, but even to the more sober observation of the few
men of science of the time, to move forward with measured
steps from the desolated East, under the form of a dark and
fetid mist. It is very likely that consequent upon the great
physical convulsions which had rent the earth and preceded the
disease, foreign substances of a deleterious character had
been projected into the atmosphere. ... The Black Death
appeared at Avignon in January 1348, visited Florence by the
middle of April, and had thoroughly penetrated France and
Germany by August. It entered Poland in 1349, reached Sweden
in the winter of that year, and Norway by infection from
England at about the same time. It spread even to Iceland and
Greenland. ... It made its appearance in Russia in 1351, after
it had well-nigh exhausted itself in Europe. It thus took the
circuit of the Mediterranean, and unlike most plagues which
have penetrated from the Eastern to the Western world, was
checked, it would seem, by the barrier of the Caucasus. ...
Hecker calculates the loss to Europe as amounting to
25,000,000."
J. E. T. Rogers, History of Agriculture and Prices,
volume 1, chapter 15.
ALSO IN:
J. F. C. Hecker, Epidemics of the Middle Ages.
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1348-1349;
FRANCE: A. D. 1347-1348;
FLORENCE: A. D. 1348;
JEWS: A: D. 1348-1349.
BLACK EAGLE, Order of the.
A Prussian order of knighthood instituted by Frederick III.,
elector of Brandenburg, in 1701.
BLACK FLAGS, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.
BLACK FRIARS.
See MENDICANT ORDERS.
BLACK GUELFS (NERI).
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300, and 1301-1313.
BLACK HAWK WAR, The.
See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1832.
BLACK HOLE OF CALCUTTA, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757:
BLACK PRINCE, The wars of the.
See POITIERS; FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380;
and SPAIN (CASTILE): A. D. 1366-1369.
BLACK ROBE, Counsellors of the.
See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.
BLACK ROD.
"The gentleman whose duty it is to preserve decorum in the
House of Lords, just as it is the duty of the Sergeant-at-Arms
to maintain order in the House of Commons. These officials are
bound to execute the commands of their respective chambers,
even though the task involves the forcible ejection of an
obstreperous member. ... His [Black Rod's] most disturbing
occupation, now-a-days, is when he conveys a message from the
Lords to the Commons. ... No sooner do the policemen herald
his approach from the lobbies than the doors of the Lower
Chamber are closed against him, and he is compelled to ask for
admission with becoming humility and humbleness. After this
has been granted, he advances to the bar, bows to the chair,
and then--with repeated acts of obeisance--walks slowly to the
table, where his request is made for the Speaker's attendance
in the Upper House. The object may be to listen to the Queen's
speech, or it may simply be to hear the Royal assent given to
various bills. ... The consequence is nearly always the same.
The Sergeant-at-Arms shoulders the mace, the Speaker joins
Black Rod, the members fall in behind, and a more or less
orderly procession then starts on its way to the Peer's
Chamber. ... No matter what the subject under consideration,
Black Rod's appearance necessitates a check ... till the
journey to the Lords has been completed, The annoyance thus
caused has often found expression during recent sessions. So
great was the grumbling last year [1890], indeed, that the
Speaker undertook to devise a better system."-
Popular Account of Parliamentary Procedure, page 11.
BLACK ROOD, of Scotland.
See HOLY ROOD OF SCOTLAND.
BLACKBURN'S FORD, Engagement at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JULY: VIRGINIA).
BLACKFEET.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.
BLADENSBURG, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
BLAIR, Francis P., Sr., in the "Kitchen
Cabinet" of President Jackson.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.
BLAIR, General Francis P., Jr.
Difficulties with General Fremont.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: MISSOURI).
BLANCHE, Queen of Aragon, A. D. 1425-1441.
BLANCO, General Guzman, The dictatorship of.
See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1869-1892.
BLAND SILVER BILL, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1878.
BLANII, The.
See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.
BLANKETEERS, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.
BLENEAU, Battle of (1652).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1653.
BLENHEIM, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.
BLENNERHASSET, Harman, and Aaron Burr.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807.
BLENNERHASSETT'S ISLAND.
An island in the Ohio, near Marietta, on which Harman
Blennerhassett, a gentleman from Ireland, had created a
charming home, at the beginning of the present century. He was
drawn into Aaron Burr's mysterious scheme (see UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807); his island became the rendezvous
of the expedition, and he was involved in the ruin of the
treasonable project.
BLOCK BOOKS.
See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.
BLOCK ISLAND, The name.
See NEW YORK A. D. 1610-1614.
BLOCKADE, Paper.
This term has been applied to the assumption by a belligerent
power, in war, of the right to declare a given coast or
certain enumerated ports, to be in the state of blockade,
without actual presence of blockading squadrons to enforce the
declaration; as by the British "Orders in Council" and the
"Berlin" and "Milan Decrees" of Napoleon, in 1806-1807.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.
{285}
BLOIS, Treaties of.
See ITALY: A. D. 1504-1506.
BLOOD COUNCIL, The.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1567.
BLOOD, or Kenai Indians.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.
BLOODY ANGLE, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA).
BLOODY ASSIZE, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (SEPTEMBER).
BLOODY BRIDGE, Ambuscade at (A. D. 1763).
See PONTIAC'S WAR.
BLOODY BROOK, Battle of.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675.
BLOODY MARSH, The Battle of the.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.
BLOREHEATH, Battle of (A. D. 1459).
Fought on a plain called Bloreheath, near Drayton, in
Staffordshire, England, Sept. 23, 1459, between 10,000
Lancastrians, commanded by Lord Audley, and about half that
number of Yorkists under the Earl of Salisbury. The latter won
a victory by superior strategy. The battle was the second that
occurred in the Wars of the Roses.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.
BLUCHER'S CAMPAIGNS.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER); 1812-1813; 1813
(APRIL-MAY) to (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH), and 1815.
BLUE, Boys in.
See BOYS IN BLUE.
BLUE LICKS, Battle of (A. D. 1782).
See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1775-1784.
BLUE-LIGHT FEDERALISTS.
"An incident, real or imaginary, which had lately [in 1813]
occurred at New London [Connecticut] was seized upon as
additional proof of collusion between the Federalists and the
enemy. [See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.] As the
winter approached, Decatur had expected to get to sea with his
two frigates. Vexed to find himself thwarted in every attempt
by the watchfulness of the enemy, he wrote to the Navy
Department in a fit of disgust, that, beyond all doubt, the
British had, by signals or otherwise, instantaneous
information of all his movements; and as proof of it, he
stated that, after several nights of favorable weather, the
report circulating in the town that an attempt was to be made
to get out, 'in the course of the evening two blue lights were
burned on both points of the harbor's mouth.' These 'signals
to the enemy,' for such he unhesitatingly pronounced them, had
been repeated, so he wrote, and had been seen by twenty
persons at least of the squadron, though it does not appear
that Decatur himself was one of the number. ... Such a clamor
was raised about it, that one of the Connecticut members of
Congress moved for a committee of investigation. ... The
inquiry was ... quashed; but the story spread and grew, and
the more vehement opponents of the war began to be stigmatized
as 'blue-light Federalists.'"--
R. Hildreth, History of the U. S., volume 6, page 467.
BLUE PARTY (of Venezuela), The.
See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.
BLUE RIBBON, The Order of the.
See SERAPHIM.
BLUES, Roman Faction of the.
See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.
BOABDIL, The last Moorish King in Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.
BOADICEA, Revolt of.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.
BOAIRE, The.
A "Cow-lord," having certain wealth in cattle, among the
ancient Irish.
BOARIAN TRIBUTE, The.
Also called the Boruwa, or Cow-tribute. An humiliating
exaction said to have been levied on the province of Leinster
by a King Tuathal of Erin, in the second century, and which
was maintained for five hundred years.
BOCAGE, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-APRIL).
BOCASOTI, The.
See BEGUINES, &c.
BOCLAND.--BOOKLAND.
See ALOD.
BŒOTARCHS.
See BŒOTIAN LEAGUE.
BŒOTIA.--BŒOTIANS.
"Between Phokis and Lokris on one side, and Attica (from which
it is divided by the mountains Kithærôn and Parnes) on the
other, we find the important territory called Bœotia, with its
ten or twelve autonomous cities, forming a sort of confederacy
under the presidency of Thebes, the most powerful among them.
Even of this territory, destined during the second period of
this history to play a part so conspicuous and effective, we
know nothing during the first two centuries after 776 B. C. We
first acquire some insight into it on occasion of the disputes
between Thebes and Platæa, about the year 520 B. C."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 3.
In the Greek legendary period one part of this territory,
subsequently Bœotian--the Copaic valley in the north--was
occupied by the enterprising people called the Minyi, whose
chief city was Orchomenus. Their neighbors were the Cadmeians
of Thebes, who are "rich," as Grote expresses it, "in
legendary antiquities." The reputed founder of Thebes was
Cadmus, bringer of letters to Hellas, from Phœnicia or from
Egypt, according to different representations. Dionysus
(Bacchus) and Hêraklês were both supposed to recognize the
Cadmeian city as their birth-place. The terrible legends of
Œdipus and his unhappy family connect themselves with the same
place, and the incident wars between Thebes and Argos--the
assaults of the seven Argive chiefs and of their sons, the
Epigoni--were, perhaps, real causes of a real destruction of
the power of some race for whom the Cadmeians stand. They and
their neighbors, the Minyi of Orchomenus, appear to have given
way before another people, from Thessaly, who gave the name
Bœotia to the country of both and who were the inhabitants of
the Thebes of historic times.
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 14;
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 4.
"That the Bœotia of history should never have attained to a
significance corresponding to the natural advantages of the
locality, and to the prosperity of the district in the
pre-Homeric age, is due above all to one principal cause. The
immigration of the Thessalian Bœotians, from which the country
derived its name and the beginnings of its connected history,
destroyed the earlier civilization of the land, without
succeeding in establishing a new civilization capable of
conducting the entire district to a prosperous and harmonious
development. It cannot be said that the ancient germs of
culture were suppressed, or that barbarous times supervened.
The ancient seats of the gods and oracles continued to be
honoured and the ancient festivals of the Muses on Mount
Helicon, and of the Charites at Orchomenus, to be celebrated.
{286}
In Bœotia too the beneficent influence of Delphi was at work,
and the poetic school of Hesiod, connected as it was with
Delphi, long maintained itself here. And a yet stronger
inclination was displayed by the Æolian immigrants towards
music and lyric poetry. The cultivation of the music of the
flute was encouraged by the excellent reeds of the Copaic
morasses. This was the genuinely national species of music in
Bœotia. ... And yet the Bœotians lacked the capacity for
attracting to themselves the earlier elements of population in
such a way as to bring about a happy amalgamation. ... The
Bœotian lords were not much preferable to the Thessalian; nor
was there any region far or near, inhabited by Greek tribes,
which presented a harsher contrast in culture or manners, than
the district where the road led from the Attic side of Mount
Parnes across to the Bœotian."
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 6, chapter 1.
See, also, GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.
BŒOTIAN LEAGUE.
"The old Bœotian League, as far as its outward forms went,
seems to have been fairly entitled to the name of a Federal
Government, but in its whole history we trace little more than
the gradual advance of Thebes to a practical supremacy over
the other cities. ... The common government was carried on in
the name of the whole Bœotian nation. Its most important
magistrates bore the title of Bœotarchs: their exact number,
whether eleven or thirteen, is a disputed point of Greek
archæology, or rather of Bœotian geography. ... Thebes chose
two Bœotarchs and each of the other cities one."
E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government.,
chapter 4, section 2.
BOERS, Boer War.
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.
BOGDANIA.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES, 14TH-15TH CENTURIES
(ROUMANIA, ETC.)
BOGESUND, Battle of (1520).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.
BOGOMILIANS, The.
A religious sect which arose among the Sclavonians of Thrace
and Bulgaria, in the eleventh century, and suffered
persecution from the orthodox of the Greek church. They
sympathized with the Iconoclasts of former times, were hostile
to the adoration of the Virgin and saints, and took more or
less from the heretical doctrines of the Paulicians. Their
name is derived by some from the two Sclavonian words, "Bog,"
signifying God, and "milui," "have mercy." Others say that
"Bogumil," meaning "one beloved by God," was the correct
designation. Basilios, the leader of the Bogomilians, was
burned by the Emperor Alexius Comnenos, in the hippodrome, at
Constantinople, A. D. 1118.
G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
716-1453, book 3, chapter 2, section 1.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 9TH-16TH CENTURIES (BOSNIA,
ETC.)
BOGOTA, The founding of the city (1538).
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.
BOHEMIA, Derivation of the name.
See BOIANS.
BOHEMIA:
Its people and their early history.
"Whatever may be the inferences from the fact of Bohemia
having been politically connected with the empire of the
Germanic Marcomanni, whatever may be those from the element
Boioas connecting its population with the Boii of Gaul and
Bavaria (Baiovarii), the doctrine that the present Slavonic
population of that kingdom--Tshekhs [or Czekhs] as they call
themselves--is either recent in origin or secondary to any
German or Keltic aborigines, is wholly unsupported by history.
In other words, at the beginning of the historical period
Bohemia was as Slavonic as it is now. From A. D. 526 to A. D.
550, Bohemia belonged to the great Thuringian Empire. The
notion that it was then Germanic (except in its political
relations) is gratuitous. Nevertheless, Schaffarik's account
is, that the ancestors of the present Tshekhs came, probably,
from White Croatia: which was either north of the Carpathians,
or each side of them. According to other writers, however, the
parts above the river Kulpa in Croatia sent them forth. In
Bohemian the verb 'ceti' = 'to begin,' from which Dobrowsky
derives the name Czekhs = the beginners, the foremost, i. e.,
the first Slavonians who passed westwards. The powerful Samo,
the just Krok, and his daughter, the wise Libussa, the founder
of Prague, begin the uncertain list of Bohemian kings, A. D.
624-700. About A. D. 722, a number of petty chiefs become
united under P'remysl the husband of Libussa. Under his son
Nezamysl occurs the first Constitutional Assembly at Wysegrad;
and in A. D. 845, Christianity was introduced. But it took no
sure footing till about A. D. 966. Till A. D. 1471 the names
of the Bohemian kings and heroes are Tshekh--Wenceslaus,
Ottokar, Ziska, Podiebrad. In A. D. 1564, the Austrian
connexion and the process of Germanizing began. ... The
history and ethnology of Moravia is nearly that of Bohemia,
except that the Marcomannic Germans, the Turks, Huns, Avars,
and other less important populations may have effected a
greater amount of intermixture. Both populations are Tshekh,
speaking the Tshekh language--the language, probably, of the
ancient Quadi."
R. G. Latham, Ethnology of Europe, chapter 11.
BOHEMIA: 7th Century.
The Yoke of the Avars broken.
The Kingdom of Samo.
See AVARS: 7TH CENTURY.
BOHEMIA: 9th Century.
Subject to the Moravian Kingdom of Svatopluk.
See MORAVIA: 9TH CENTURY.
BOHEMIA: 13th Century.
The King made a Germanic Elector.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1276.
War of King Ottocar with the Emperor Rodolph of Hapsburg.
His defeat and death.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1310.
Acquisition of the crown by John of Luxembourg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1308-1313.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1347.
Charles IV. elected to the imperial throne.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1355.
The succession fixed in the Luxemburg dynasty.
Incorporation of Moravia, Silesia, &c.
The diet of the nobles, in 1355, joined Charles IV. in "fixing
the order of succession in the dynasty of Luxemburg, and in
definitely establishing that principle of primogeniture which
had already been the custom in the Premyslide dynasty.
Moravia, Silesia, Upper Lusatia, Brandenburg, which had been
acquired from the margrave Otto, and the county of Glatz
(Kladsko), with the consent of the diets of these provinces,
were declared integral and inalienable portions of the kingdom
of Bohemia."
L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, chapter 11.
{287}
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1364.
Reversion of the crown guaranteed to the House of Austria.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1378-1400.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415.
John Hus, and the movement of Religious Reformation.
"Some sparks of the fire which Wielif had lighted [see
ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414], blown over half Europe, as far as
remote Bohemia, quickened into stronger activity a flame which
for long years burned and scorched and consumed, defying all
efforts to extinguish it. But for all this, it was not Wiclif
who kindled the Bohemian fires. His writing did much to fan
and feed them; while the assumed and in part erroneously
assumed, identity of his teaching with that of Hus contributed
not a little to shape the tragic issues of the Bohemian
reformer's life. But the Bohemian movement was an independent
and eminently a national one. If we look for the proper
forerunners of Hus, his true spiritual ancestors, we shall
find them in his own land, in a succession of earnest and
faithful preachers. ... John Hus (b. 1369, d. 1415), the
central figure of the Bohemian Reformation, took in the year
1394 his degree as Bachelor of Theology in that University of
Prague, upon the fortunes of which he was destined to exercise
so lasting an influence; and four years later, in 1398, he
began to deliver lectures there. ... He soon signalized
himself by his diligence in breaking the bread of life to
hungering souls, and his boldness in rebuking vice in high
places as in low. So long as he confined himself to reproving
the sins of the laity, leaving those of the Clergy and monks
unassailed, he found little opposition, nay, rather support
and applause from these. But when [1405] he brought them also
within the circle of his condemnation, and began to upbraid
them for their covetousness, their ambition, their luxury,
their sloth, and for other vices, they turned angrily upon
him, and sought to undermine his authority, everywhere
spreading reports of the unsoundness of his teaching. ...
While matters were in this strained condition, events took
place at Prague which are too closely connected with the story
that we are telling, exercised too great an influence in
bringing about the issues that lie before us, to allow us to
pass them by. ... The University of Prague, though recently
founded--it only dated back to the year 1348--was now, next
after those of Paris and Oxford, the most illustrious in
Europe. ... This University, like that of Paris, on the
pattern of which it had been modelled, was divided into four
'nations'--four groups, that is, or families of scholars--each
of these having in academical affairs a single collective
vote. These nations were the Bavarian, the Saxon, the Polish,
and the Bohemian. This does not appear at first an unfair
division--two German and two Slavonic; but in practical
working the Polish was so largely recruited from Silesia, and
other German or half-German lands, that its vote was in fact
German also. The Teutonic votes were thus as three to one, and
the Bohemians in their own land and their own University on
every important matter hopelessly outvoted. When, by, aid of
this preponderance, the University was made to condemn the
teaching of Wiclif ... matters came to a crisis. Urged by Hus,
who as a stout patriot, and an earnest lover of the Bohemian
language and literature, had more than a theological interest
in the matter,--by Jerome [of Prague],--by a large number of
the Bohemian nobility,--King Wenzel published an edict whereby
the relations of natives and foreigners were completely
reversed. There should be henceforth three votes for the
Bohemian nation, and only one for the three others. Such a
shifting of the weights certainly appears as a redressing of
one inequality by creating another. At all events it was so
earnestly resented by the Germans, by professors and students
alike, that they quitted the University in a body, some say of
five, and some of thirty thousand, and founded the rival
University of Leipsic, leaving no more than two thousand
students at Prague. Full of indignation against Hus, whom they
regarded as the prime author of this affront and wrong, they
spread throughout all Germany the most unfavourable reports of
him and of his teaching. This exodus of the foreigners had
left Hus, who was now Rector of the University, with a freer
field than before. But Church matters at Prague did not mend;
they became more confused and threatening every day; until
presently the shameful outrage against all Christian morality
which a century later did a still more effectual work, served
to put Hus into open opposition to the corrupt hierarchy of
his time. Pope John XXIII., having a quarrel with the King of
Naples, proclaimed a crusade against him, with what had become
a constant accompaniment of this,--Indulgences to match. But
to denounce Indulgences, as Hus with fierce and righteous
indignation did now, was to wound Rome in her most sensitive
part. He was excommunicated at once, and every place which
should harbour him stricken with an interdict. While matters
were in this frame the Council of Constance [see PAPACY: A. D.
1414-1418] was opened, which should appease all the troubles
of Christendom, and correct whatever was amiss. The Bohemian
difficulty could not be omitted, and Hus was summoned to make
answer at Constance for himself. He had not been there four
weeks when he was required to appear before the Pope and
Cardinals (Nov. 18, 1414). After a brief informal hearing he
was committed to harsh durance from which he never issued as a
free man again. Sigismund, the German King and Emperor Elect,
who had furnished Hus with a safe-conduct which should protect
him, 'going to the Council, tarrying at the Council, returning
from the Council,' was absent from Constance at the time, and
heard with real displeasure how lightly regarded this promise
and pledge of his had been. Some big words too he spoke,
threatening to come himself and release the prisoner by force;
but, being waited on by a deputation from the Council, who
represented to him that he, as a layman, in giving such a
safe conduct had exceeded his powers, and intruded into a
region which was not his, Sigismund was convinced, or affected
to be convinced. ... More than seven months elapsed before Hus
could obtain a hearing before the Council. This was granted to
him at last. Thrice heard (June 5, 7, 8, 1415),--if indeed
such tumultuary sittings, where the man speaking for his life,
and for much more than his life, was continually interrupted
and overborne by hostile voices, by loud cries of 'Recant,'
'Recant,' may be reckoned as hearings at all,--he bore
himself, by the confession of all, with courage, meekness and
dignity." He refused to recant. Some of the articles brought
against him, he said, "charged him with teaching things which
he had never taught, and he could not, by this formal act of
retraction, admit that he had taught them." He was condemned,
sentenced to the stake, and burned, on the 6th of July, 1415.
His friend, Jerome, of Prague, suffered the same fate in the
following May.
R. C. Trench, Lectures on Mediaeval Church History,
lecture 22.
ALSO IN:
E. H. Gillett, Life and times of John Hus.
A. H. Wratislaw, John Hus.
A. Neander, General History of Christian Religion,
volume 9, part 2.
{288}
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1410.
Election of King Sigismund to the imperial throne.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.
The Hussite Wars.
The Reformation checked.
"The fate of Huss and Jerome created an instant and fierce
excitement among the Bohemians. An address, defending them
against the charge of heresy and protesting against the
injustice and barbarity of the Council, was signed by 400 or
500 nobles and forwarded to Constance. The only result was
that the Council decreed that no safe-conduct could be allowed
to protect a heretic, that the University of Prague must be
reorganized, and the strongest measures applied to suppress
the Hussite doctrines in Bohemia. This was a defiance which
the Bohemians courageously accepted. Men of all classes united
in proclaiming that the doctrines of Huss should be freely
taught, and that no Interdict of the Church should be
enforced: the University, and even Wenzel's queen, Sophia,
favored this movement, which soon became so powerful that all
priests who refused to administer the sacrament 'in both
forms' were driven from the churches. ... When the Council of
Constance was dissolved [1418], Sigismund [the Emperor]
hastened to Hungary to carry on a new war with the Turks, who
were already extending their conquests along the Danube. The
Hussites in Bohemia employed this opportunity to organize
themselves for resistance; 40,000 of them, in July, 1419,
assembled on a mountain to which they gave the name of Tabor,
and chose as their leader a nobleman who was surnamed Ziska,
'the one-eyed.' The excitement soon rose to such a pitch that
several monasteries were stormed and plundered. King Wenzel
arrested some of the ringleaders, but this only inflamed the
spirit of the people. They formed a procession in Prague,
marched through the city, carrying the sacramental cup at
their head, and took forcible possession of several churches.
When they halted before the city-hall, to demand the release
of their imprisoned brethren, stones were thrown at them from
the windows, whereupon they broke into the building and hurled
the Burgomaster and six other officials upon the upheld spears
of those below. ... The Hussites were already divided into two
parties, one moderate in its demands, called the Calixtines,
from the Latin 'calix,' a chalice, which was their symbol
[referring to their demand for the administration of the
eucharistic cup to the laity, or communion 'sub utraque
specie'--whence they were also called 'Utraquists']; the other
radical and fanatic, called the 'Taborites,' who proclaimed
their separation from the Church of Rome and a new system of
brotherly equality through which they expected to establish
the Millenium upon earth. The exigencies of their situation
obliged these two parties to unite in common defence against
the forces of the Church and the Empire, during the sixteen
years of war which followed; but they always remained
separated in their religious views, and mutually intolerant.
Ziska, who called himself 'John Ziska of the Chalice,
commander in the hope of God of the Taborites,' had been a
friend and was an ardent follower of Huss. He was an old man,
bald-headed, short, broad-shouldered, with a deep furrow
across his brow, an enormous aquiline nose, and a short red
moustache. In his genius for military operations, he ranks
among the great commanders of the world; his quickness, energy
and inventive talent were marvellous, but at the same time he
knew neither tolerance nor mercy. . . . Sigismund does not
seem to have been aware of the formidable character of the
movement, until the end of his war with the Turks, some months
afterwards, and he then persuaded the Pope to summon all
Christendom to a crusade against Bohemia. During the year 1420
a force of 100,000 soldiers was collected, and Sigismund
marched at their head to Prague. The Hussites met him with the
demand for the acceptance of the following articles: 1.--The
word of God to be freely preached; 2.--The sacrament to be
administered in both forms; 3.---The clergy to possess no
property or temporal authority; 4.--All sins to be punished by
the proper authorities. Sigismund was ready to accept these
articles as the price of their submission, but the Papal
Legate forbade the agreement, and war followed. On the 1st of
November, 1420, the Crusaders were totally defeated by Ziska,
and all Bohemia was soon relieved of their presence. The
dispute between the moderates and the radicals broke out
again; the idea of a community of property began to prevail
among the Taborites, and most of the Bohemian nobles refused
to act with them. Ziska left Prague with his troops and for a
time devoted himself to the task of suppressing all opposition
through the country, with fire and sword. He burned no less
than 550 convents and monasteries, slaying the priests and
monks who refused to accept the new doctrines. ... While
besieging the town of Raby, an arrow destroyed his remaining
eye, yet he continued to plan battles and sieges as before.
The very name of the blind warrior became a terror throughout
Germany. In September, 1421, a second Crusade of 200,000 men,
commanded by five German Electors, entered Bohemia from the
west. ... But the blind Ziska, nothing daunted, led his
wagons, his flail-men, and mace-wielders against the Electors,
whose troops began to fly before them. No battle was fought;
the 200,000 Crusaders were scattered in all directions, and
lost heavily during their retreat. Then Ziska wheeled about
and marched against Sigismund, who was late in making his
appearance. The two armies met on the 8th of January, 1422 [at
Deutschbrod], and the Hussite victory was so complete that the
Emperor narrowly escaped falling into their hands. ... A third
Crusade was arranged and Frederick of Brandenburg (the
Hohenzollern) selected to command it, but the plan failed from
lack of support.
{289}
The dissensions among the Hussites became fiercer
than ever; Ziska was at one time on the point of attacking
Prague, but the leaders of the moderate party succeeded in
coming to an understanding with him, and he entered the city
in triumph. In October, 1424, while marching against Duke
Albert of Austria, who had invaded Moravia, he fell a victim
to the plague. Even after death he continued to terrify the
German soldiers, who believed that his skin had been made into
a drum, and still called the Hussites to battle. A majority of
the Taborites elected a priest, called Procopius the Great, as
their commander in Ziska's stead; the others who thenceforth
styled themselves 'Orphans,' united under another priest,
Procopius the Little. The approach of another Imperial army,
in 1426, compelled them to forget their differences, and the
result was a splendid victory over their enemies. Procopius
the Great then invaded Austria and Silesia, which he laid
waste without mercy. The Pope called a fourth Crusade, which
met the same fate as the former ones: the united armies of the
Archbishop of Treves, the Elector Frederick of Brandenburg and
the Duke of Saxony, 200,000 strong, were utterly defeated, and
fled in disorder, leaving an enormous quantity of stores and
munitions of war in the hands of the Bohemians. Procopius, who
was almost the equal of Ziska as a military leader, made
several unsuccessful attempts to unite the Hussites in one
religious body. In order to prevent their dissensions from
becoming dangerous to the common cause, he kept the soldiers
of all sects under his command, and undertook fierce invasions
into Bavaria, Saxony and Brandenburg, which made the Hussite
name a terror to all Germany. During these expeditions one
hundred towns were destroyed, more than 1,500 villages burned,
tens of thousands of the inhabitants slain, and such
quantities of plunder collected that it was impossible to
transport the whole of it to Bohemia. Frederick of Brandenburg
and several other princes were compelled to pay heavy tributes to
the Hussites: the Empire was thoroughly humiliated, the people
weary of slaughter, yet the Pope refused even to call a
Council for the discussion of the difficulty. ... The German
princes made a last and desperate effort: an army of 130,000
men, 40,000 of whom were cavalry, was brought together, under
the command of Frederick of Brandenburg, while Albert of
Austria was to support it by invading Bohemia from the south.
Procopius and his dauntless Hussites met the Crusaders on the
14th of August, 1431, at a place called Thauss, and won
another of their marvellous victories. The Imperial army was
literally cut to pieces, 8,000 wagons, filled with provisions
and munitions of war, and 150 cannons, were left upon the
field. The Hussites marched northward to the Baltic, and
eastward into Hungary, burning, slaying, and plundering as
they went. Even the Pope now yielded, and the Hussites were
invited to attend the Council at Basel, with the most solemn
stipulations in regard to personal safety and a fair
discussion of their demands. ... In 1433, finally 300
Hussites, headed by Procopius, appeared in Basel. They
demanded nothing more than the acceptance of the four articles
upon which they had united in 1420; but after seven weeks of
talk, during which the Council agreed upon nothing and
promised nothing, they marched away, after stating that any
further negotiation must be carried on in Prague. This course
compelled the Council to act; an embassy was appointed, which
proceeded to Prague, and on the 30th of November, the same
year, concluded a treaty with the Hussites. The four demands
were granted, but each with a condition attached which gave
the Church a chance to regain its lost power. For this reason,
the Taborites and 'Orphans' refused to accept the compact; the
moderate party united with the nobles and undertook to
suppress the former by force. A fierce internal war followed,
but it was of short duration. In 1434, the Taborites were
defeated [at Lipan, May 30], their fortified mountain taken,
Procopius the Great and the Little were both slain, and the
members of the sect dispersed. The Bohemian Reformation was
never again dangerous to the Church of Rome."
B. Taylor, History of Germany, chapter 22.
ALSO IN:
C. A. Peschek, Reformation and Anti-Reformation in
Bohemia, introductory chapter.
E. H. Gillett, Life and Times of John Hus,
volume 2, chapter 13-18.
E. de Schweinitz, History of the Church known as the Unitas
Fratrum, chapter 9.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457.
Organization of the Utraquist National Church.
Minority of Ladislaus Posthumus.
Regency of George Podiebrad.
Origin of the Unitas Fratrum.
"The battle of Lipan was a turning point in the history of the
Hussites. It put Bohemia and Moravia into the hands of the
Utraquists, and enabled them to carry out their plans
unhindered. The man who was foremost in shaping events and who
became more and more prominent, until he exercised a
commanding influence, was John of Rokycana. ... At the diet of
1435 he was unanimously elected archbishop. ... Meantime
Sigismund endeavored to regain his kingdom. The Diet made
demands which were stringent and humiliating; but he pledged
himself to fulfill them, and on the 5th of July, 1436, at a
meeting held with great pomp and solemnity, in the
market-place of Iglau, was formally acknowledged as King of
Bohemia. On the same occasion, the Compactata were anew
ratified and the Bohemians readmitted to the fellowship of the
mother church. But scarcely had Sigismund reached his capital
when he began so serious a reaction in favor of Rome that
Rokycana secretly left the city and retired to a castle near
Pardubic (1437). The king's treachery was, however, cut short
by the hand of death, on the 9th of December, of the same
year, at Znaim, while on his way to Hungary; and his successor
and son-in-law, Albert of Austria, followed him to the grave
in 1439, in the midst of a campaign against the Turks. Bohemia
was left without a ruler, for Albert had no children except a
posthumous son [Ladislaus Posthumus.]"
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442, and 1442-1458.
"A time of anarchy began and various leagues arose, the most
powerful of which stood under Baron Ptacek. ... He ... called
an ecclesiastical convention at Kuttenberg (October 4th). This
convention brought about far-reaching results. ... Rokycana
was acknowledged as Archbishop elect, the supreme direction of
ecclesiastical affairs was committed into his hands, the
priests promised him obedience, and 24 doctrinal and
constitutional articles were adopted which laid the foundation
of the Utraquist Church as the National Church of Bohemia.
{290}
But the Taborites stood aloof. ... At last a disputation was
agreed upon," as the result of which the Taborites were
condemned by the Diet. "They lost all prestige; their towns,
with the exception of Tabor, passed out of their hands; their
membership was scattered and a large part of it joined the
National Church. In the following summer Ptacek died and
George Podiebrad succeeded him as the head of the league.
Although a young man of only 24 years, he displayed the
sagacity of an experienced statesman and was distinguished by
the virtues of a patriot. In 1448 a bold stroke made him
master of Prague and constituted him practically Regent of all
Bohemia; four years later his regency was formally
acknowledged. He was a warm friend of Rokycana, whose
consecration he endeavored to bring about." When it was found
that Rome could not be reconciled, there were thoughts of
cutting loose altogether from the Roman Catholic and uniting
with the Greek Church. "Negotiations were actually begun in
1452, but came to an abrupt close in the following year, in
consequence of the fall of Constantinople. About the same time
Ladislaus Posthumus, Albert's son, assumed the crown,
Podiebrad remaining Regent. The latter continued the friend of
Rokycana; the former, who was a Catholic, conceived a strong
dislike to him. As soon as Rokycana had given up the hope of
conciliating Rome, he began to preach, with great power and
eloquence, against its corruptions." It was at this time that
a movement arose among certain of his followers which resulted
in the formation of the remarkable religious body which called
itself Unitas Fratrum. The leading spirit in this movement was
Rokycana's nephew, commonly called Gregory the Patriarch. The
teaching and influence which shaped it was that of Peter
Chelcicky. Gregory and his companions, wishing to dwell
together, in the Christian unity of which they had formed an
ideal in their minds, found a retreat at the secluded village
of Kunwald, on the estate of George Podiebrad. "The name which
they chose was 'Brethren of the Law of Christ'--'Fratres
Legis Christi'; inasmuch, however, as this name gave rise to
the idea that they were a new order of Monks, they changed it
simply into 'Brethren.' When the organization of their Church
had been completed, they assumed the additional title of
'Jednota Bratrska,' or Unitas Fratrum, that is, the Unity of
the Brethren, which has remained the official and significant
appellation of the Church to the present day. .... It was
often abbreviated into 'The Unity.' Another name by which the
Church called itself was 'The Bohemian Brethren.' It related
to all the Brethren, whether they belonged to Bohemia,

Moravia, Prussia or Poland. To call them The Bohemian-Moravian
Brethren, or the Moravian Brethren, is historically incorrect.
The name Moravian arose in the time of the Renewed Brethren's
Church, because the men by whom it was renewed came from
Moravia. ... The organization of the Unitas Fratrum took place
in the year 1457."
E. De Schweinitz, History of the Church known as Unitas
Fratrum, chapter 10-12.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458.
Election of George Podiebrad to the throne.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.
Papal excommunication and deposition of the king, George
Podiebrad.
A crusade.
War with the Emperor and Matthias of Hungary.
Death of Podiebrad and election of Ladislaus of Poland.
"George Podiebrad had scarcely ascended the throne before the
Catholics, at the instigation of the pope, required him to
fulfil his coronation oath, by expelling all heretics from
the kingdom. He complied with their request, banished the
Taborites, Picards, Adamites, and all other religious sects
who did not profess the Catholic doctrines, and issued a
decree that all his subjects should become members of the
Catholic church, as communicants under one or both kinds. The
Catholics, however, were not satisfied; considering the
Calixtins as heretics, they entreated him to annul the
compacts, or to obtain a new ratification of them from the new
pope: To gratify their wishes he sent an embassy to Rome,
requesting a confirmation of the compacts; but Pius, under the
pretence that the compacts gave occasion to heresy, refused
his ratification, and sent Fantino della Valle, as legate, to
Prague, for the purpose of persuading the king to prohibit the
administration of the communion under both kinds. In
consequence of this legation the king called a diet, at which
the legate and the bishops of Olmutz and Breslau were present.
The ill success of the embassy to Rome having been announced,
he said, 'I am astonished, and cannot divine the intentions of
the pope. The compacts were the only means of terminating the
dreadful commotions in Bohemia, and if they are annulled, the
kingdom will again relapse into the former disorders. The
council of Basle, which was composed of the most learned men
in Europe, approved and granted them to the Bohemians, and
pope Eugenius confirmed them. They contain no heresy, and are
in all respects conformable to the doctrines of the holy
church. I and my wife have followed them from our childhood,
and I am determined to maintain them till my death.' ...
Fantino replying in a long and virulent invective, the king
ordered him to quit the assembly, and imprisoned him in the
castle of Podiebrad, allowing him no other sustenance except
bread and water. The pope, irritated by this insult, annulled
the compacts, in 1463, and fulminated a sentence of
excommunication against the king, unless he appeared at Rome
within a certain time to justify his conduct. This bull
occasioned a great ferment among the Catholics; Podiebrad was
induced to liberate the legate, and made an apology to the
offended pontiff; while Frederic, grateful for the assistance
which he had recently received from the king of Bohemia, when
besieged by his brother Albert, interposed his mediation with
the pope, and procured the suspension of the sentence of
excommunication. Pius dying on the 14th of August, 1464, the
new pope, Paul II., persecuted the king of Bohemia with
increasing acrimony. He sent his legate to Breslau to excite
commotions among the Catholics, endeavoured without effect to
gain Casimir, king of Poland, by the offer of the Bohemian
crown, and applied with the same ill success to the states of
Germany. He at length overcame the gratitude of the emperor by
threats and promises, and at the diet of Nuremberg in 1467,
the proposal of his legate Fantino, to form a crusade against the
heretic king of Bohemia, was supported by the imperial ambassadors.
{291}
Although this proposal was rejected by the diet,
the pope published a sentence of deposition against Podiebrad,
and his emissaries were allowed to preach the crusade
throughout Germany, and in every part of the Austrian
territories. The conduct of Frederic drew from the king of
Bohemia, in 1468, a violent invective against his ingratitude,
and a formal declaration of war; he followed this declaration
by an irruption into Austria, spreading devastation as far as
the Danube. Frederic in vain applied to the princes of the
empire for assistance: and at length excited Matthias king of
Hungary against his father-in-law, by offering to invest him
with the kingdom of Bohemia. Matthias, forgetting his
obligations to Podiebrad, to whom he owed his life and crown,
was dazzled by the offer, and being assisted by bodies of
German marauders, who had assumed the cross, invaded Bohemia.
At the same time the intrigues of the pope exciting the
Catholics to insurrection, the country again became a prey to
the dreadful evils of a civil and religious war. The vigour
and activity of George Podiebrad suppressed the internal
commotions, and repelled the invasion of the Hungarians; an
armistice was concluded, and the two kings, on the 4th of
April, 1469, held an amicable conference at Sternberg, in
Moravia, where they entered into a treaty of peace. But
Matthias, influenced by the perfidious maxim, that no compact
should be kept with heretics, was persuaded by the papal
legate to resume hostilities. After overrunning Moravia and
Silesia, he held a mock diet at Olmutz with some of the
Catholic party, where he was chosen king of Bohemia, and
solemnly crowned by the legate. ... Podiebrad, in order to
baffle the designs both of the emperor and Matthias, summoned
a diet at Prague, and proposed to the states as his successor,
Ladislaus, eldest son of Casimir, king of Poland, by
Elizabeth, second daughter of the emperor Albert. The proposal
was warmly approved by the nation, ... as the Catholics were
desirous of living under a prince of their own communion, and
the Calixtins anxious to prevent the accession of Frederic or
Matthias, both of whom were hostile to their doctrines. The
states accordingly assented without hesitation, and Ladislaus
was unanimously nominated successor to the throne. The
indignation of Matthias was inflamed by his disappointment,
and hostilities were continued with increasing fury. The two
armies, conducted by their respective sovereigns, the ablest
generals of the age, for some time kept each other in check;
till at length both parties, wearied by the devastation of
their respective countries, concluded a kind of armistice, on
the 22nd of July, 1470, which put a period to hostilities. On
the death of Podiebrad, in the ensuing year, Frederic again
presenting himself as a candidate, was supported by still
fewer adherents than on the former occasion; a more numerous
party espoused the interests of Matthias; but the majority
declaring for Ladislaus, he was re-elected, and proclaimed
king. Frederic supported Ladislaus in preference to Matthias,
and by fomenting the troubles in Hungary, as well as by his
intrigues with the king of Poland, endeavoured not only to
disappoint Matthias of the throne of Bohemia, but even to
drive him from that of Hungary."
W. Coxe. History of the House of Austria,
chapter 18 (volume 1).
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1471-1479.
War with Matthias of Hungary.
Surrender of Moravia and Silesia.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1490.
King Ladislaus elected to the throne of Hungary.
See Hungary: A. D. 1487-1526.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1516-1576.
Accession of the House of Austria.
The Reformation and its strength.
Alternating toleration and persecution.
In 1489 Vladislav "was elected to the throne of Hungary after
the death of Mathias Corvinus. He died in 1516, and was
succeeded on the throne of Bohemia and Hungary by his minor
son, Louis, who perished in 1526 at the battle of Mohacz
against the Turks [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526]. An equality
of rights was maintained between the Hussites and the Roman
Catholics during these two reigns. Louis left no children, and
was succeeded on the throne of Hungary and Bohemia by
Ferdinand of Austria [see, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1406-1526],
brother of the Emperor Charles V., and married to the sister
of Louis, a prince of a bigoted and despotic character. The
doctrines of Luther had already found a speedy echo amongst
the Calixtines under the preceding reign; and Protestantism
gained so much ground under that of Ferdinand, that the
Bohemians refused to take part in the war against the
Protestant league of Smalkalden, and formed a union for the
defence of the national and religious liberties, which were
menaced by Ferdinand. The defeat of the Protestants at the
battle of Muhlberg, in 1547, by Charles V., which laid
prostrate their cause in Germany, produced a severe reaction
in Bohemia. Several leaders of the union were executed, others
imprisoned or banished; the property of many nobles was
confiscated, the towns were heavily fined, deprived of several
privileges, and subjected to new taxes. These measures were
carried into execution with the assistance of German, Spanish,
and Hungarian soldiers, and legalized by an assembly known
under the name of the Bloody Diet. ... The Jesuits were also
introduced during that reign into Bohemia. The privileges of
the Calixtine, or, as it was officially called, the Utraquist
Church, were not abolished; and Ferdinand, who had succeeded
to the imperial crown after the abdication of his brother
Charles V., softened, during the latter years of his reign,
his harsh and despotic character. ... He died in 1564,
sincerely regretting, it is said, the acts of oppression which
he had committed against his Bohemian subjects. He was
succeeded by his son, the Emperor Maximilian II., a man of
noble character and tolerant disposition, which led to the
belief that he himself inclined towards the doctrines of the
Reformation. He died in 1576, leaving a name venerated by all
parties. ... Maximilian's son, the Emperor Rudolph, was
educated at the court of his cousin, Philip II. of Spain, and
could not be but adverse to Protestantism, which had, however,
become too strong, not only in Bohemia, but also in Austria
proper, to be easily suppressed; but several indirect means
were adopted, in order gradually to effect this object."
V. Krasinski, Lectures on the Religious History of the
Slavonic Nations, lecture 2.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1576-1604.
Persecution of Protestants by Rudolph.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.
{292}
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618.
The Letter of Majesty, or Royal Charter, and Matthias's
violation of it.
Ferdinand of Styria forced upon the nation as king by
hereditary right.
The throwing of the Royal Counsellors from the window.
Beginning of the Thirty Years War.
In 1611 the Emperor Rodolph was forced to surrender the crown
of Bohemia to his brother Matthias. The next year he died,
and Matthias succeeded him as Emperor also. "The tranquillity
which Rodolph II.'s Letter of Majesty [see GERMANY: A. D.
1608-1618] had established in Bohemia lasted for some time,
under the administration of Matthias, till the nomination of a
new heir to this kingdom in the person of Ferdinand of Gratz
[Styria]. This prince, whom we shall afterwards become better
acquainted with under the title of Ferdinand II., Emperor of
Germany, had, by the violent extirpation of the Protestant
religion within his hereditary dominions, announced himself as
an inexorable zealot for popery, and was consequently looked
upon by the Catholic part of Bohemia as the future pillar of
their church. The declining health of the Emperor brought on
this hour rapidly; and, relying on so powerful a supporter,
the Bohemian Papists began to treat the Protestants with
little moderation. The Protestant vassals of Roman Catholic
nobles, in particular, experienced the harshest treatment. At
length several of the former were incautious enough to speak
somewhat loudly of their hopes, and by threatening hints to
awaken among the Protestants a suspicion of their future
sovereign. But this mistrust would never have broken out into
actual violence, had the Roman Catholics confined themselves
to general expressions, and not by attacks on individuals
furnished the discontent of the people with enterprising
leaders. Henry Matthias, Count Thurn, not a native of Bohemia,
but proprietor of some estates in that kingdom, had, by his
zeal for the Protestant cause, and an enthusiastic attachment
to his newly adopted country, gained the entire confidence of
the Utraquists, which opened him the way to the most important
posts. ... Of a hot and impetuous disposition, which loved
tumult because his talents shone in it--rash and thoughtless
enough to undertake things which cold prudence and a calmer
temper would not have ventured upon--unscrupulous enough,
where the gratification of his passions was concerned, to
sport with the fate of thousands, and at the same time politic
enough to hold in leading-strings such a people as the
Bohemians then were. He had already taken an active part in
the troubles under Rodolph's administration; and the Letter of
Majesty which the States had extorted from that Emperor, was
chiefly to be laid to his merit. The court had intrusted to
him, as burgrave or castellan of Calstein, the custody of the
Bohemian crown, and of the national charter. But the nation
had placed in his hands something far more important--itself
--with the office of defender or protector of the faith. The
aristocracy by which the Emperor was ruled, imprudently
deprived him of this harmless guardianship of the dead, to
leave him his full influence over the living. They took from
him his office of burgrave, or constable of the castle, which
had rendered him dependent on the court, thereby opening his
eyes to the importance of the other which remained, and
wounded his vanity, which yet was the thing that made his
ambition harmless. From this moment he was actuated solely by
a desire of revenge; and the opportunity of gratifying it was
not long wanting. In the Royal Letter which the Bohemians had
extorted from Rodolph II., as well as in the German religious
treaty, one material article remained undetermined. All the
privileges granted by the latter to the Protestants, were
conceived in favour of the Estates or governing bodies, not of
the subjects; for only to those of ecclesiastical states had a
toleration, and that precarious, been conceded. The Bohemian
Letter of Majesty, in the same manner, spoke only of the
Estates and the imperial towns, the magistrates of which had
contrived to obtain equal privileges with the former. These
alone were free to erect churches and schools, and openly to
celebrate their Protestant worship: in all other towns, it was
left entirely to the government to which they belonged, to
determine the religion of the inhabitants. The Estates of the
Empire had availed themselves of this privilege in its fullest
extent; the secular indeed without opposition; while the
ecclesiastical, in whose case the declaration of Ferdinand had
limited this privilege, disputed, not without reason, the
validity of that limitation. What was a disputed point in the
religious treaty, was left still more doubtful in the Letter
of Majesty. ... In the little town of Klostergrab, subject to
the Archbishop of Prague; and in Braunau, which belonged to
the abbot of that monastery, churches were founded by the
Protestants, and completed notwithstanding the opposition of
their superiors, and the disapprobation of the Emperor. ... By
the Emperor's orders, the church at Klostergrab was pulled
down; that at Braunau forcibly shut up, and the most turbulent
of the citizens thrown into prison. A general commotion among
the Protestants was the consequence of this measure; a loud
outcry was everywhere raised at this violation of the Letter
of Majesty; and Count Thurn animated by revenge, and
particularly called upon by his office of defender, showed
himself not a little busy in inflaming the minds of the
people. At his instigation deputies were summoned to Prague
from every circle in the empire, to concert the necessary
measures against the common danger. It was resolved to
petition the Emperor to press for the liberation of the
prisoners. The answer of the Emperor, already offensive to the
states, from its being addressed, not to them, but to his
viceroy, denounced their conduct as illegal and rebellious,
justified what had been done at Klostergrab and Braunau as the
result of an imperial mandate, and contained some passages
that might be construed into threats. Count Thurn did not fail
to augment the unfavourable impression which this imperial
edict made upon the assembled Estates. ... He held it ...
advisable first to direct their indignation against the
Emperor's counsellors; and for that purpose circulated a
report, that the imperial proclamation had been drawn up by
the government at Prague and only signed in Vienna. Among the
imperial delegates, the chief objects of the popular hatred,
were the President of the Chamber, Slawata, and Baron
Martinitz, who had been elected in place of Count Thurn,
Burgrave of Calstein. ... Against two characters so unpopular
the public indignation was easily excited, and they were
marked out for a sacrifice to the general indignation.
{293}
On the 23rd of May, 1618, the deputies appeared armed, and in
great numbers, at the royal palace, and forced their way into
the hall where the Commissioners Sternberg, Martinitz,
Lobkowitz, and Slawata were assembled. In a threatening tone
they demanded to know from each of them, whether he had taken
any part, or had consented to, the imperial proclamation.
Sternberg received them with composure, Martinitz and Slawata
with defiance. This decided their fate; Sternberg and
Lobkowitz, less hated, and more feared, were led by the arm
out of the room; Martinitz and Slawata were seized, dragged to
a window, and precipitated from a height of 80 feet, into the
castle trench. Their creature, the secretary Fabricius, was
thrown after them. This singular mode of execution naturally
excited the surprise of civilized nations. The Bohemians
justified it as a national custom, and saw nothing remarkable
in the whole affair, excepting that anyone should have got up
again safe and sound after such a fall. A dunghill, on which
the imperial commissioners chanced to be deposited, had saved
them from injury. [The incident of the flinging of the
obnoxious ministers from the window is often referred to as
'the defenestration at Prague.'] ... By this brutal act of
self-redress, no room was left for irresolution or repentance,
and it seemed as if a single crime could be absolved only by a
series of violences. As the deed itself could not be undone,
nothing was left but to disarm the hand of punishment. Thirty
directors were appointed to organize a regular insurrection.
They seized upon all the offices of state, and all the
imperial revenues, took into their own service the royal
functionaries and the soldiers, and summoned the whole
Bohemian nation to avenge the common cause."
F. Schiller, History of the Thirty Years' War, book 1,
pages 51-55.
ALSO IN:
S. R. Gardiner, The Thirty Years' War, chapter 2.
A. Gindely, History of the Thirty Years' War, chapter 1.
F. Kohlrausch, History of Germany, chapter 22.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1618-1620.
Conciliatory measures defeated by Ferdinand.
His election to the Imperial throne, and his deposition in
Bohemia.
Acceptance of the crown by Frederick the Palatine Elector.
His unsupported situation.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1620.
Disappointment in the newly elected King.
His aggressive Calvinism.
Battle of the White Mountain before Prague.
Frederick's flight.
Annulling of the Royal charter.
Loss of Bohemian Liberties.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1620,
and HUNGARY: A. D. 1606-1660.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1621-1648.
The Reign of Terror.
Death, banishment, confiscation, dragoonades.
The country a desert.
Protestantism crushed, but not slain.
"In June, 1621, a fearful reign of terror began in Bohemia,
with the execution of 27 of the most distinguished heretics.
For years the unhappy people bled under it; thousands were
banished, and yet Protestantism was not fully exterminated.
The charter was cut into shreds by the Emperor himself; there
could be no forbearance towards 'such acknowledged rebels.' As
a matter of course, the Lutheran preaching was forbidden under
the heaviest penalties; heretical works, Bibles especially,
were taken away in heaps. Jesuit colleges, churches, and
schools came into power; but this was not all. A large number
of distinguished Protestant families were deprived of their
property, and, as if that were not enough, it was decreed that
no non-Catholic could be a citizen, nor carry on a trade,
enter into a marriage, nor make a will; anyone who harboured a
Protestant preacher forfeited his property; whoever permitted
Protestant instruction to be given was to be fined, and
whipped out of town; the Protestant poor who were not
converted were to be driven out of the hospitals, and to be
replaced by Catholic poor; he who gave free expression to his
opinions about religion was to be executed. In 1624 an order
was issued to all preachers and teachers to leave the country
within eight days under pain of death; and finally, it was
ordained that whoever had not become Catholic by Easter, 1626,
must emigrate. ... But the real conversions were few;
thousands quietly remained true to the faith; other thousands
wandered as beggars into foreign lands, more than 30,000
Bohemian families, and among them 500 belonging to the
aristocracy, went into banishment. Exiled Bohemians were to be
found in every country of Europe, and were not wanting in any
of the armies that fought against Austria. Those who could not
or would not emigrate, held to their faith in secret. Against
them dragoonades were employed. Detachments of soldiers were
sent into the various districts to torment the heretics till
they were converted. The 'Converters' (Seligmacher) went thus
throughout all Bohemia, plundering and murdering. ... No
succour reached the unfortunate people; but neither did the
victors attain their end. Protestantism and the Hussite
memories could not be slain, and only outward submission was
extorted. ... A respectable Protestant party exists to this
day in Bohemia and Moravia. But a desert was created; the land
was crushed for a generation. Before the war Bohemia had
4,000,000 inhabitants, and in 1648 there were but 700,000 or
800,000. These figures appear preposterous, but they are
certified by Bohemian historians. In some parts of the country
the population has not attained the standard of 1620 to this
day."
L. Häusser, The Period of the Reformation, chapter 32.
ALSO IN:
C. A. Peschek, Reformation and Anti-Reformation in
Bohemia, volume 2.
E. de Schweinitz, History of the Church known as the
Unitas Fratrum, chapter 47-51.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1631-1632.
Temporary occupation by the Saxons.
Their expulsion by Wallenstein.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1640-1645.
Campaigns of Baner and Torstenson.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1646-1648.
Last campaigns of the Thirty Years War.
Surprise and capture of part of Prague by the Swedes.
Siege of the old city.
Peace.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1740.
The question of the Austrian Succession.
The Pragmatic Sanction.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and 1740.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1741.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER), and (OCTOBER).
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY).
Prussian invasion.
Battle of Chotusitz.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY).
{294}
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
Expulsion of the French.
Belleisle's retreat.
Maria Theresa crowned at Prague.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1757.
The Seven Years War.
Frederick's invasion and defeat.
Battles of Prague and Kolin.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).
----------BOHEMIA: End----------
BOHEMIAN BRETHREN, The.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457,
and GERMANY: A. D. 1620.
BOHEMIANS (Gypsies).
See GYPSIES.
BOIANS, OR BOII.
Some passages in the earlier history and movements of the
powerful Gallic tribe known as the Boii will be found touched
upon under ROME: B. C. 390-347, and B. C. 295-191, in accounts
given of the destruction of Rome by the Gauls, and of the
subsequent wars of the Romans with the Cisalpine Gauls. After
the final conquest of the Boians in Gallia Cisalpina, early in
the second century, B. C., the Romans seem to have expelled
them, wholly or partly, from that country, forcing them to
cross the Alps. They afterwards occupied a region embraced in
modern Bavaria and Bohemia, both of which countries are
thought to have derived their names from these Boian people.
Some part of the nation, however, associated itself with the
Helvetii and joined in the migration which Cæsar arrested. He
settled these Boians in Gaul, within the Æduan territory,
between the Loire and the Allier. Their capital city was
Gergovia, which was also the name of a city of the Arverni.
The Gergovia of the Boians is conjectured to have been modern
Moulius. Their territory was the modern Bourbonnais, which
probably derived its name from them. Three important names,
therefore, in European geography and history, viz.--Bourbon,
Bavaria and Bohemia, are traced to the Gallic nation of the
Boii.
Tacitus, Germany, translated by a Church and Brodribb,
notes.
ALSO IN:
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 12, note.
BOIS-LE-DUC.
Siege and capture by the Dutch (1629).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.
BOKHARA (Ancient Transoxania).
"Taken literally, the name [Transoxania] is a translation of
the Arabic Mavera-un-nehr (that which lies beyond or across
the river), and it might therefore be supposed that
Transoxania meant the country lying beyond or on the right
shore of the Oxus. But this is not strictly speaking the case.
... From the period of the Samanides down to modern times, the
districts of Talkan, Tokharistan and Zem, although lying
partly or entirely on the left bank of the Oxus, have been
looked on as integral portions of Bokhara. Our historical
researches seem to prove that this arrangement dates from the
Samanides, who were themselves originally natives of that part
of Khorassan. ... It is almost impossible in dealing
geographically with Transoxania to assign definitely an
accurate frontier. We can and will therefore comprehend in our
definition of Transoxania solely Bokhara, or the khanate of
Bokhara; for although it has only been known by the latter
name since the time of Sheïbani and of the Ozbegs [A. D.
1500], the shores of the Zerefshan and the tract of country
stretching southwards to the Oxus and northwards to the desert
of Kizil Kum, represent the only parts of the territory which
have remained uninterruptedly portions of the original
undivided state of Transoxania from the earliest historical
times. ... Bokhara, the capital from the time of the
Samanides, and at the date of the very earliest geographical
reports concerning Transoxania, is said, during its
prosperity, to have been the largest city of the Islamite
world. ... Bokhara was not, however, merely a luxurious city,
distinguished by great natural advantages; it was also the
principal emporium for the trade between China and Western
Asia; in addition to the vast warehouses for silks, brocades,
and cotton stuffs, for the finest carpets, and all kinds of
gold and silversmiths' work, it boasted of a great
money-market, being in fact the Exchange of all the population
of Eastern and Western Asia. ... Sogd ... comprised the
mountainous part of Transoxania (which may be described as the
extreme western spurs of the Thien-Shan). ... The capital was
Samarkand, undoubtedly the Maracanda of the Greeks, which they
specify as the capital of Sogdia. The city has, throughout the
history of Transoxania been the rival of Bokhara. Before the
time of the Samanides, Samarkand was the largest city beyond
the Oxus, and only began to decline from its former importance
when Ismail chose Bokhara for his own residence. Under the
Khahrezmians it is said to have raised itself again, and
become much larger than its rival, and under Timour to have
reached the culminating point of its prosperity."
A. Vambery, History of Bokhara, introduction.
ALSO IN: J. Hutton, Central Asia, chapter 2-3.
BOKHARA: B. C. 329-327.
Conquest by Alexander the Great.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.
BOKHARA: 6th Century.
Conquest from the White Huns by the Turks.
See TURKS: 6TH CENTURY.
BOKHARA: A. D. 710.
The Moslem Conquest.
See. MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 710.
BOKHARA: A. D. 991-998.
Under the Samanides.
See SAMANIDES.
BOKHARA: A. D. 1004-1193.
The Seldjuk Turks.
See TURKS (THE SELDJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063, and after.
BOKHARA: A. D. 1209-1220.
Under the Khuarezmians.
See KHUAREZM: 12TH CENTURY.
BOKHARA: A. D. 1219.
Destruction of the city by Jingis Khan.
Bokhara was taken by Jingis Khan in the summer of 1219. "It
was then a very large and magnificent city. Its name,
according to the historian Alai-ud-din, is derived from
Bokhar, which in the Magian language means the Centre of
Science." The city surrendered after a siege of a few days.
Jingis Khan, on entering the town, saw the great mosque and
asked if it was the Sultan's palace. "Being told it was the
house of God, he dismounted, climbed the steps, and said in a
loud voice to his followers, 'The hay is cut, give your horses
fodder.' They easily understood this cynical invitation to
plunder. ... The inhabitants were ordered to leave the town in
a body, with only their clothes, so that it might be more
easily pillaged, after which the spoil was divided among the
victors. 'It was a fearful day,' says Ibn al Ithir; 'one only
heard the sobs and weeping of men, women and children, who
were separated forever; women were ravished, while men died
rather than survive the dishonour of their wives and
daughters.' The Mongols ended by setting fire to all the
wooden portion of the town, and only the great mosque and
certain palaces which were built of brick remained standing."
H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, volume 1, chapter 3.
{295}
"The flourishing city on the Zerefshan had become a heap of
rubbish, but the garrison in the citadel, commanded by Kok
Khan, continued to hold out with a bravery which deserves our
admiration. The Mongols used every imaginable effort to reduce
this last refuge of the enemy; the Bokhariots themselves were
forced on to the scaling-ladders: but all in vain, and it was
not until the moat had been literally choked with corpses of
men and animals that the stronghold was taken and its brave
defenders put to death. The peaceable portion of the
population was also made to suffer for this heroic resistance.
More than 30,000 men were executed, and the remainder were,
with the exception of the very old people among them, reduced
to slavery, without any distinction of rank whatever; and thus
the inhabitants of Bokhara, lately so celebrated for their
learning, their love of art, and their general refinement,
were brought down to a dead level of misery and degradation
and scattered to all quarters."
A. Vambery, History of Bokhara, chapter 8.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.
BOKHARA: A. D. 1868.
Subjection to Russia.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.
----------BOKHARA: End----------
BOLERIUM.
See BELERION.
BOLESLAUS I., King of Poland, A. D. 1000-1025.
Boleslaus II., King of Poland, A. D. 1058-1083.
Boleslaus III., Duke of Poland, A. D. 1102-1138.
Boleslaus IV., Duke of Poland, A. D. 1146-1173.
Boleslaus V., King of Poland, A. D. 1227-1279.
BOLEYN, Anne.
Marriage, trial and execution.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534; and, 1536-1543.
BOLGARI.
See BULGARIA: ORIGIN OF.
BOLIVAR'S LIBERATION OF THE SOUTH AMERICAN STATES.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819, 1819-1830;
and PERU: A. D. 1820-1826, 1825-1826, and 1826-1876.
BOLIVIA:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
"With the Toromonos tribe, who occupied, as Orbigny tells us,
a district of from 11° to 13° of South latitude, it was an
established rule for every man to build his house, with his
own hands alone, and if he did otherwise he lost the title of
man, as well as became the laughing-stock of his fellow
citizens. The only clothing worn by these people was a turban
on the head, composed of feathers, the rest of the body being
perfectly naked; whilst the women used a garment, manufactured
out of cotton, that only partially covered their persons. ...
The ornament in which the soft sex took most pride was a
necklace made of the teeth of enemies, killed by their
husbands in battle. Amongst the Moxos polygamy was tolerated,
and woman's infidelity severely punished. ... The Moxos
cultivated the land with ploughs, and other implements of
agriculture, made of wood. They fabricated canoes, fought and
fished with bows and arrows. In the province of the Moxos
lived also a tribe called Itonomos, who, besides these last
named instruments of war, used two edged wooden scimitars. The
immorality of these Itonomos was something like that of the
Mormons of our time. ... The Canichanas, who lived near
Machupo, between 13° and 14° South latitude and 67° to 68° West
longitude, are reputed by M. d'Orbigny as the bravest of the
Bolivian Indians. They are accredited to have been cannibals.
...Where Jujuy--the most northern province· of the Argentine
Republic--joins Bolivia, we have in the present day the
Mataguaya and Cambas Indians. The latter are represented to me
by Dr. Matienzo, of Rosario, as intelligent and devoted to
agricultural labor. They have fixed tolderias [villages], the
houses of which are clean and neat. Each town is commanded by
a capitan, whose sovereignty is hereditary to his male
descendants only."
T. J. Hutchinson, The Parana, chapter 4.
See, also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS, and TUPI.
In the Empire of the Incas.
See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.
BOLIVIA: A. D. 1559.
Establishment of the Audiencia of Charcas.
See AUDIENCIAS.
BOLIVIA: A. D. 1825-1826.
The independent Republic founded and named in Upper Peru.
The Bolivian Constitution.
"Upper Peru [or Las Charcas, as it was more specifically
known] ... had been detached [in 1776--see ARGENTINE REPUBLIC:
A. D. 1580-1777] from the government of Lima ... to form part
of the newly constituted Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres. The
fifteen years' struggle for independence was here a sanguinary
one indeed. There is scarcely a town, village, or noticeable
place in this vast region where blood is not recorded to have
been shed in this terrible struggle. ... The Spanish army
afterwards succumbed to that of the independents of Peru; and
thus Upper Peru gained, not indeed liberty, but independence
under the rule of a republican army. This vast province was
incapable of governing itself. The Argentines laid claim to it
as a province of the confederation; but they already exercised
too great a preponderance in the South American system, and
the Colombian generals obtained the relinquishment of these
pretensions. Sucre [Bolivar's Chief of Staff] assumed the
government until a congress could be assembled: and under the
influence of the Colombian soldiery Upper Peru was erected
into an independent state by the name of the Republic of
Bolivar, or Bolivia."--
E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, page 290.
For an account of the Peruvian war of liberation--the results
of which embraced Upper Peru--and the adoption of the Bolivian
constitution by the latter,
See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826, and 1825-1826.
BOLIVIA: A. D. 1834-1839.
Confederation with Peru.
War with Chile.
See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.
BOLIVIA: A. D. 1879-1884.
The war with Chile.
See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.
----------BOLIVIA: End----------
BOLIVIAN CONSTITUTION, or Code Bolivar.
See PERU: A. D. 1825-1826, and 1826-1876.
BOLOGNA: Origin of the city.
On the final conquest of the Boian Gauls in North Italy, a new
Roman colony and frontier fortress were established, B. C.
189, called first Felsina and then Bononia, which is the
Bologna of modern Italy.
H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 41.
BOLOGNA:
Origin of the name.
See BOIANS.
{296}
BOLOGNA: B. C. 43.
Conference of the Triumvirs.
See ROME: B. C. 44-42.
BOLOGNA: 11th Century.
School of Law.
The Glossators.
"Just at this time [end of the 11th century] we find a famous
school of law established in Bologna, and frequented by
multitudes of pupils, not only from all parts of Italy, but
from Germany, France, and other countries. The basis of all
its instructions was the Corpus Juris Civilis. Its teachers,
who constitute a series of distinguished jurists extending
over a century and a half, devoted themselves to the work of
expounding the text and elucidating the principles of the
Corpus Juris, and especially the Digest. From the form in
which they recorded and handed down the results of their
studies, they have obtained the name of glossators. On their
copies of the Corpus Juris they were accustomed to write
glosses, i. e., brief marginal explanations and remarks. These
glosses came at length to be an immense literature."
J. Hadley, Introduction to Roman Law, lecture 2.
BOLOGNA: 11th-12th Centuries.
Rise and Acquisition of Republican Independence.
See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.
BOLOGNA: A. D. 1275.
Sovereignty of the Pope confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.
BOLOGNA: A. D. 1350-1447.
Under the tyranny of the Visconti.
See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447;
and FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1402.
BOLOGNA: A. D. 1512.
Acquisition by Pope Julius II.
See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.
BOLOGNA: A. D. 1796-1797.
Joined to the Cispadane Republic.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
BOLOGNA: A. D. 1831.
Revolt suppressed by Austrian troops.
See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.
----------BOLOGNA: End----------
BOMBAY.
Cession to England (1661).
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
BON HOMME RICHARD AND THE SERAPIS.--Sea-fight.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (SEPTEMBER).
BONAPARTE, Jerome, and his Kingdom of Westphalia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY);
1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER--DECEMBER).
BONAPARTE, Joseph,
King of Naples, King of Spain.
See
FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER);
SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER), to 1812-1814.
BONAPARTE, Louis, and the Kingdom of Holland.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.
BONAPARTE, Louis Napoleon.
See NAPOLEON III.
BONAPARTE, NAPOLEON,
The career of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER),
and 1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER), to 1815.
BONAPARTE FAMILY,
The origin of the.
"About four miles to the south of Florence, on an eminence
overlooking the valley of the little river Greve, and the then
bridle-path leading towards Siena and Rome, there was a very
strong castle, called Monte Boni, Mons Boni, as it is styled
in sundry deeds of gift executed within its walls in the years
1041, 1085, and 1100, by which its lords made their peace with
the Church, in the usual way, by sharing with churchmen the
proceeds of a course of life such as needed a whitewashing
stroke of the Church's office. A strong castle on the road to
Rome, and just at a point where the path ascended a steep
hill, offered advantages and temptations not to be resisted;
and the lords of Monte Boni 'took toll' of passengers. But, as
Villani very naïvely says, 'the Florentines could not endure
that another should do what they abstained from doing.' So as
usual they sallied forth from their gates one fine morning,
attacked the strong fortress, and razed it to the ground. All
this was, as we have seen, an ordinary occurrence enough in
the history of young Florence. This was a way the burghers
had. They were clearing their land of these vestiges of
feudalism, much as an American settler clears his ground of
the stumps remaining from the primeval forest. But a special
interest will be admitted to belong to this instance of the
clearing process, when we discover who those noble old
freebooters of Monte Boni were. The lords of Monte Boni were
called, by an easy, but it might be fancied ironical,
derivation from the name of their castle 'Buoni del
Monte,'--the Good Men of the Mountain;--and by abbreviation,
Buondelmonte, a name which we shall hear more of anon in the
pages of this history. But when, after the destruction of
their fortress, these Good Men of the Mountain became
Florentine citizens, they increased and multiplied; and in the
next generation, dividing off into two branches, they assumed,
as was the frequent practice, two distinctive appellations; the
one branch remaining Buondelmonti, and the other calling
themselves Buonaparte. This latter branch shortly afterwards
again divided itself into two, of which one settled at San
Miniato al Tedesco, and became extinct there in the person of
an aged canon of the name within this century; while the other
first established itself at Sarzaua, a little town on the
coast about half-way between Florence and Genoa, and from
thence at a later period transplanted itself to Corsica; and
has since been heard of."
T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
volume 1, pages 50-51.
BONIFACE, ST.,
The Mission of.
See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 496-800.
BONIFACE, COUNT, and the Vandals.
See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.
BONIFACE III., Pope, A. D. 607, FEBRUARY TO NOVEMBER.
Boniface IV., Pope, A. D. 608-615.
Boniface V., Pope, A. D. 619-625.
Boniface VI., Pope, A. D. 896.
Boniface VII., Pope, A. D. 974, 984-985.
Boniface VIII., Pope, A. D. 1294-1303.
Boniface IX., Pope, A. D. 1389-1404.
BONN, Siege and Capture by Marlborough (1703).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.
BONNET ROUGE, The.
See LIBERTY CAP.
BONONIA IN GAUL.
See GESORIACUM.
BONONIA IN ITALY.
See BOLOGNA.
BOOK OF THE DEAD.
"A collection (ancient Egyptian) of prayers and exorcisms
composed at various periods for the benefit of the pilgrim
soul in his journey through Amenti (the Egyptian Hades); and
it was in order to provide him with a safe conduct through the
perils of that terrible valley that copies of this work, or
portions of it, were buried with the mummy in his tomb. Of the
many thousands of papyri which have been preserved to this
day, it is perhaps scarcely too much to say that one half, if
not two thirds, are copies more or less complete of the Book
of the Dead."
A. B. Edwards, Academy, Sept. 10, 1887.
{297}
M. Naville published in 1887 a collation of the numerous
differing texts of the Book of the Dead, on the preparation of
which he had been engaged for ten years.
BOONE, Daniel, and the settlement of Kentucky.
See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1765-1778, and 1775-1784.
BOONVILLE, Battle of.
See MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
BOONSBORO, or South Mountain, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).
BOOTH, John Wilkes.
Assassination of President Lincoln.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).
BOR-RUSSIA.
See PRUSSIA: THE ORIGINAL COUNTRY AND ITS NAME.
BORDARII.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND; also MANORS.
BORDEAUX: Origin.
See BURDIGALA.
BORDEAUX: A. D. 732.
Stormed and sacked by the Moslems.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.
BORDEAUX: A. D. 1650.
Revolt of the Frondeurs.
Siege of the city.
Treaty of Peace.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.
BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.
The last phase of the Fronde.
Rebellion of the Society of the Ormée.
Cromwell's help invoked.
Siege and submission of the city.
"The peace of Bordeaux in October, 1650. had left the city
tranquil, but not intimidated, and its citizens were neither
attached to the government nor afraid of it. ... There, as at
Paris, a violent element obtained control, ready for
disturbance, and not alarmed by the possibility of radical
changes in the government. ... During the popular emotion
against Épernon, meetings, mostly of the lower classes, had
been held under some great elms near the city, and from this
circumstance a party had taken the name of the Ormée. It now
assumed a more definite form, and began to protest against the
slackness of the officers and magistrates, who it was charged,
were ready to abandon the popular cause. The Parliament was
itself divided into two factions," known as the Little Fronde
and the Great Fronde--the latter of which was devoted to the
Prince of Condé. "The Ormée was a society composed originally
of a small number of active and violent men, and in its
organization not wholly unlike the society of the Jacobins.
... Troubles increased between this society and the
parliament, and on June 3d [1652] it held a meeting attended
by 3,000 armed men, and decided on the exile of fourteen of
the judges who were regarded as traitors to the cause. ... The
offending judges were obliged to leave the city, but in a few
days the Parliament again obtained control, and the exiles
were recalled and received with great solemnity. But the Ormée
was not thus to be overcome. On June 25th these contests
resulted in a battle in the streets, in which the society had
the advantage. Many of the judges abandoned the conflict and
left the city. The Ormée established itself at the Hotel de
Ville, and succeeded in controlling for the most part the
affairs of the city. ... Condé decided that he would recognize
the Ormée as a political organization, and strengthen it by
his approval. ... The restoration of the King's authority at
Paris [see FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1653] strengthened the party at
Bordeaux that desired peace, and increased the violence of the
party that was opposed to it. Plots were laid for the
overthrow of the local authorities, but they were wholly
unsuccessful. ... The desire of the people, the nobility, and
the clergy was for peace. Only by speedy aid from Spain could
the city be kept in hostility to its King and in allegiance to
Condé. Spain was asked to send assistance and prevent this
important loss, but the Spanish delayed any vigorous action,
partly from remissness and partly from lack of troops and
money. The most of the province of Guienne was gradually lost
to the insurgents. ... Condé seems to have left Guienne to
itself. ... In this condition, the people of Bordeaux turned
to Cromwell as the only person who had the power to help them.
... The envoys were received by Cromwell, but he took no steps
to send aid to Bordeaux. Hopes were held out which encouraged
the city and alarmed the French minister, but no ships were
sent." Meantime, the King's forces in Guienne advanced with
steady success, and early in the summer of 1653 they began the
siege of the city. The peace party within, thus encouraged,
soon overthrew the Ormée, and arranged terms for the
submission of the town. "The government proceeded at once to
erect the castles of Trompette and Ho, and they were made
powerful enough to check any future turbulence."
J. B. Perkins, France under Mazarin, chapter 15 (volume 2).
BORDEAUX: A. D. 1791.
The Girondists in the National Legislative Assembly.
See France: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER).
BORDEAUX: A. D. 1793.
Revolt against the Revolutionary Government of Paris.
Fearful vengeance of the Terrorists.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE); (JULY-DECEMBER); AND
1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
BORDEAUX: A. D. 1814.
Occupied by the English.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.
----------BORDEAUX: End----------
BORDER-RUFFIANS.
See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.
BORGHETTO, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A.D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).
BORGIAS, The.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513.
BORIS, Czar of Russia. A. D. 1598-1605.
BORLA, The.
See PERU: A.D. 1533-1548.
BORNHOVED, Battle of (1227).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.
BORNY, OR COLOMBEY-NOUILLY, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).
BORODINO, OR THE MOSKOWA, Battle of.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
BOROUGH.--CITY.--TOWN.--VILLE.
"The burh of the Anglo-Saxon period was simply a more strictly

organized form of the township. It was probably in a more
defensible position; had a ditch and mound instead of the
quickset hedge or 'tun' from which the township took its name;
and as the 'tun' originally was the fenced homestead of the
cultivator, the burh was the fortified house and court-yard of
the mighty man--the king, the magistrate, or the noble."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
chapter 5.
{298}
"I must freely confess that I do not know what difference,
except a difference in rank, there is in England between a
city and a borough. ... A city does not seem to have any
rights or powers as a city which are not equally shared by
every other corporate town. The only corporate towns which
have any special powers above others are those which are
counties of themselves; and all cities are not counties of
themselves, while some towns which are not cities are. The
city in England is not so easily defined as the city in the
United States. There, every corporate town is a city. This
makes a great many cities, and it leads to an use of the word
city in common talk which seems a little strange in British
ears. In England, even in speaking of a real city, the word
city is seldom used, except in language a little formal or
rhetorical; in America it is used whenever a city is
mentioned. But the American rule has the advantage of being
perfectly clear and avoiding all doubt. And it agrees very
well with the origin of the word: a corporate town is a
'civitas,' a commonwealth; any lesser collection of men hardly
is a commonwealth, or is such only in a much less perfect
degree. This brings us to the historical use of the word. It
is clear at starting that the word is not English. It has no
Old-English equivalent; burh, burgh, borough, in its various
spellings and various shades of meaning, is our native word
for urbes of every kind from Rome downward. It is curious that
this word should in ordinary speech have been so largely
displaced by the vaguer word tun, town, which means an
enclosure of any kind, and in some English dialects is still
applied to a single house and its surroundings. ... In common
talk we use the word borough hardly oftener than the word
city; when the word is used, it has commonly some direct
reference to the parliamentary or municipal characters of the
town. Many people, I suspect, would define a borough as a town
which sends members to Parliament, and such a definition,
though still not accurate, has, by late changes, been brought
nearer to accuracy than it used to be. City and borough, then,
are both rather formal words; town is the word which comes
most naturally to the lips when there is no special reason for
using one of the others. Of the two formal words, borough is
English; city is Latin; it comes to us from Gaul and Italy by
some road or other. It is in Domesday that we find, by no
means its first use in England, but its first clearly formal
use, the first use of it to distinguish a certain class of
towns, to mark those towns which are 'civitates' as well as
burgi from those which are burgi only. Now in Gaul the
'civitas' in formal Roman language was the tribe and its
territory, the whole land of the Arverni, Parisii, or any
other tribe. In a secondary sense it meant the head town of
the tribe. ... When Christianity was established, the
'civitas' in the wider sense marked the extent of the bishop's
diocese; the 'civitas' in the narrower sense became the
immediate seat of his bishopstool. Thus we cannot say that in
Gaul a town became a city because it was a bishop's see; but
we may say that a certain class of towns became bishops' sees
because they were already cities. But in modern French use no
distinction is made between these ancient capitals which
became bishoprics and other towns of less temporal and
spiritual honour. The seat of the bishopric, the head of the
ancient province, the head of the modern department, the
smaller town which has never risen to any of those dignities,
are all alike ville. Lyons, Rheims, Paris, are in no way
distinguished from meaner places. The word cité is common
enough, but it has a purely local meaning. It often
distinguishes the old part of a town, the ancient 'civitas,'
from later additions. In Italy on the other hand, città is
both the familiar and the formal name for towns great and
small. It is used just like ville in French."
E. A. Freeman, City and Borough Macmillan's Mag.,
May, 1889.
BOROUGH-ENGLISH.
See FEUDAL TENURES.
BOROUGHBRIDGE, Battle of.
Fought March 16, 1322, in the civil war which arose in England
during the reign of Edward II. on account of the King's
favorites, the Déspensers. Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, the
leader of opposition, was defeated, captured, summarily tried
and beheaded.
BOROUGHS, Rotten and Pocket.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830, and 1830-1832.
BORROMEAN, OR GOLDEN LEAGUE, The.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1579-1630.
BORYSTHENES, The.
The name which the Greeks gave anciently to the river now
known as the Dnieper. It also became the name of a town near
the mouth of the river, which was originally called Olbia,--a
very early trading settlement of the Milesians.
BOSCOBEL, The Royal Oak of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651.
BOSNIA.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.
BOSPHORUS, OR BOSPORUS, The.
The word means literally an 'ox-ford,' and the Greeks derived
it as a name from the legend of Io, who, driven by a gad-fly,
swam across the straits from Europe into Asia. They gave the
name particularly to that channel, on which Constantinople
lies, but applied it also to other similar straits, such as
the Cimmerian Bosporus, opening the Sea of Azov.
BOSPHORUS:
The city and kingdom.
"Respecting Bosporus, or Pantikapæum (for both names denote
the same city, though the former name often comprehends the
whole annexed dominion) founded by Milesian settlers on the
European side of the Kimmerian Bosporus (near Kertsch) we
first hear, about the period when Xerxes was repulsed from
Greece (480-479 B. C.) It was the centre of a dominion
including Phanagoria, Kepi, Hermonassa, and other Greek cities
on the Asiatic side of the strait; and it is said to have been
governed by what seems to have been an oligarchy--called the
Archæanaktidæ--for forty-two years (480--438 B. C.) After them
we have a series of princes standing out individually by name,
and succeeding each other in the same family, [438-284 B. C.].
... During the reigns of these princes, a connexion of some
intimacy subsisted between Athens and Bosporus; a connexion
not political, since the Bosporanic princes had little
interest in the contentions about Hellenic hegemony--but of
private intercourse, commercial exchange and reciprocal good
offices. The eastern corner of the Tauric Chersonesus, between
Pantikapæum and Theodosia, was well suited for the production
of corn; while plenty of fish, as well as salt, was to be had
in or near the Palus Mæotis. Corn, salted fish and meat, hides
and barbaric slaves in considerable numbers, were in demand
among all Greeks round the Ægean, and not least at Athens,
where Scythian slaves were numerous; while oil and wine, and
other products of more southern regions, were acceptable in
Bosporus and the other Pontic ports.
{299}
This important traffic seems to have been mainly carried on in
ships and by capital belonging to Athens and other Ægean
maritime towns, and must have been greatly under the
protection and regulation of the Athenians, so long as their
maritime empire subsisted. Enterprising citizens of Athens
went to Bosporus (as to Thrace and the Thracian Chersonesus),
to push their fortunes. ... We have no means of following [the
fortunes of the Bosporanic princes] in detail; but we know
that, about a century B. C., the then reigning prince,
Parisades IV. found himself so pressed and squeezed by the
Scythians, that he was forced (like Olbia and the Pentapolis)
to forego his independence, and to call in, as auxiliary or
master, the formidable Mithridates Eupator of Pontus; from
whom a new dynasty of Bosporanic kings began--subject,
however, after no long interval, to the dominion and
interference of Rome."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 98.
ALSO IN:
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 7.
See MITHRIDATIC WARS, and ROME: B. C. 47-46.
Acquisition by the Goths.
See GOTHS, ACQUISITION OF BOSPHORUS.
BOSPHORUS: A. D. 565-574.
Capture by the Turks.
"During the reign of Justin [A. D. 565-574] the city of
Bosporus, in Tauris, had been captured by the Turks, who then
occupied a considerable portion of the Tauric Chersonesus. The
city of Cherson alone continued to maintain its independence
in the northern regions of the Black Sea."
G. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, chapter 4, section 8.
See TURKS: SIXTH CENTURY.
----------BOSPHORUS: End----------
BOSSISM.
The "Spoils System" in American politics [see SPOILS SYSTEM]
developed enormously the influence and power of certain
leaders and managers of party organizations, in the great
cities and some of the states, who acquired the names of
"Bosses," while the system of politics which they represented
was called "Bossism." The notorious William H. Tweed, of the
New York "Tammany Ring" [see NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871] seems
to have been the first of the species to be dubbed "Boss
Tweed" by his "heelers," or followers, and the title passed
from him to others of like kind.
BOSTON: A. D. 1628-1630.
The first white inhabitant.
The founding and naming of the city.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628, and 1630.
BOSTON: A. D. 1631-1651.
The Puritan Theocracy.
Troubles with Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson and the
Presbyterians.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636, to 1646-1651.
BOSTON: A. D. 1656-1661.
The persecution of Quakers.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.
BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.
The Halfway Covenant and the founding of the Old South Church.
"In Massachusetts after 1650 the opinion rapidly gained ground
that all baptised persons of upright and decorous lives ought
to be considered, for practical purposes, as members of the
church, and therefore entitled to the exercise of political
rights, even though unqualified for participation in the
Lord's Supper. This theory of church membership, based on what
was at that time stigmatized as the Halfway Covenant, aroused
intense opposition. It was the great question of the day. In
1657 a council was held in Boston, which approved the
principle of the Halfway Covenant; and as this decision was
far from satisfying the churches, a synod of all the clergymen
in Massachusetts was held five years later, to reconsider the
great question. The decision of the synod substantially
confirmed the decision of the council, but there were some
dissenting voices. Foremost among the dissenters, who wished
to retain the old theocratic regime in all its strictness, was
Charles Chauncey, the president of Harvard College, and
Increase Mather agreed with him at the time, though he
afterward saw reason to change his opinion and published two
tracts in favour of the Halfway Covenant. Most bitter of all
toward the new theory of church-membership was, naturally
enough, Mr. Davenport of New Haven. This burning question was
the source of angry contentions in the First Church of Boston.
Its teacher, the learned and melancholy Norton, died in 1663,
and four years later the aged pastor, John Wilson, followed
him. In choosing a successor to Wilson the church decided to
declare itself in opposition to the liberal decision of the
synod, and in token thereof invited Davenport to come from New
Haven to take charge of it. Davenport, who was then seventy
years old, was disgusted at the recent annexation of his
colony to Connecticut. He accepted the invitation and came to
Boston, against the wishes of nearly half of the Boston
congregation, who did not like the illiberal principle which
he represented. In little more than a year his ministry at
Boston was ended by death; but the opposition to his call had
already proceeded so far that a secession from the old church
had become inevitable. In 1669 the advocates of the Halfway
Covenant organized themselves into a new society under the
title of the 'Third Church in Boston.' A wooden meeting-house
was built on a lot which had once belonged to the late
governor Winthrop, in what was then the south part of the
town, so that the society and its meeting-house became known
as the South Church; and after a new church founded in Summer
Street in 1717 took the name of the New South, the church of
1669 came to be further distinguished as the Old South. As
this church represented a liberal idea which was growing in
favour with the people, it soon became the most flourishing
church in America. After sixty years its numbers had increased
so that the old meeting-house could not contain them; and in
1729 the famous building which still stands was erected on the
same spot,--a building with a grander history than any other
on the American continent, unless it be that other plain brick
building in Philadelphia where the Declaration of Independence
was adopted and the Federal Constitution framed."
J. Fiske, The Beginnings of New England, chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
H. M. Dexter, The Congregationalism of the last 300
years, lecture 9.
B. B. Wisner, History of the Old South Church, sermon 1.
W. Emerson, Historical Sketch of the First Church in
Boston, section 4-7.
BOSTON: A. D. 1674-1678.
King Philip's War.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.
BOSTON: A. D. 1689.
The rising for William and Mary and the downfall of Andros.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1686-1689.
{300}
BOSTON: A. D. 1697.
Threatened attack by the French.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1692-1697.
BOSTON: A. D. 1704.
The first newspaper.
See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1704-1729.
BOSTON: A. D. 1740-1742.
The origin of Faneuil Hall.
See FANEUIL HALL.
BOSTON: A. D. 1761.
The question of the Writs of assistance and James Otis's
speech.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 176l.
BOSTON: A. D. 1764-1767.
Patriotic self-denials.
Non-importation agreements.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.
BOSTON: A. D. 1765-1767.
The doings under the Liberty Tree.
See LIBERTY TREE.
BOSTON: A. D. 1768.
The seizure of the sloop "Liberty."
Riotous patriotism.
"For some years these officers [of the customs] had been
resisted in making seizures of uncustomed goods, which were
frequently rescued from their possession by interested
parties, and the determination of the commissioners of customs
to break up this practice frequently led to collisions; but no
flagrant outbreak occurred until the seizure of John Hancock's
sloop 'Liberty' (June 10, 1768), laden with a cargo of Madeira
wine. The officer in charge, refusing a bribe, was forcibly
locked up in the cabin, the greater part of the cargo was
removed, and the remainder entered at the custom-house as the
whole cargo. This led to seizure of the vessel, said to have
been the first made by the commissioners, and for security she
was placed under the guns of the 'Romney,' a man-of-war in the
harbor. For this the revenue officers were roughly handled by
the mob. Their boat was burned, their houses threatened, and
they, with their alarmed families, took refuge on board the
'Romney,' and finally in the Castle. These proceedings
undoubtedly led to the sending additional military forces to
Boston in September. The General Court was in session at the
time, but no effectual proceedings were taken against the
rioters. Public sympathy was with them in their purposes if
not in their measures."
M. Chamberlain, The Revolution Impending (Narrative and
Critical History of America, volume 6, chapter 1).
BOSTON: A. D. 1768.
The quartering of British troops.
"Before news had reached England of the late riot in Boston,
two regiments from Halifax had been ordered thither. When news
of that riot arrived, two additional regiments were ordered
from Ireland. The arrival of an officer, sent by Gage from New
York, to provide quarters for these troops, occasioned a town
meeting in Boston, by which the governor was requested to
summon a new General Court, which he peremptorily refused to
do. The meeting then recommended a convention of delegates
from all the towns in the province to assemble at Boston in
ten days; 'in consequence of prevailing apprehensions of a war
with France'--such was the pretence--they advised all persons
not already provided with fire-arms to procure them at once;
they also appointed a day of fasting and prayer, to be
observed by all the Congregational societies. Delegates from
more than a hundred towns met accordingly at the day appointed
[Sept. 22], chose Cushing, speaker of the late House, as their
chairman, and petitioned Bernard to summon a General Court.
The governor not only refused to receive their petition, but
denounced the meeting as treasonable. In view of this charge,
the proceedings were exceedingly cautious and moderate. All
pretensions to political authority were expressly disclaimed.
In the course of a four days' session a petition to the King
was agreed to, and a letter to the agent, De Berdt, of which
the chief burden was to defend the province against the charge
of a rebellious spirit. Such was the first of those popular
conventions, destined within a few years to assume the whole
political authority of the colonies. The day after the
adjournment the troops from Halifax arrived. There was room in
the barracks at the castle, but Gage, alarmed at the accounts
from Massachusetts, had sent orders from New York to have the
two regiments quartered in the town. The council were called
upon to find quarters, but, by the very terms of the
Quartering Act, as they alleged, till the barracks were full
there was no necessity to provide quarters elsewhere. Bernard
insisted that the barracks had been reserved for the two
regiments expected from Ireland, and must, therefore, be
considered as already full. The council replied, that, even
allowing that to be the case, by the terms of the act, the
provision of quarters belonged not to them, but to the local
magistrates. There was a large building in Boston belonging to
the province, known as the 'Manufactory House,' and occupied
by a number of poor families. Bernard pressed the council to
advise that this building be cleared and prepared for the
reception of the troops; but they utterly refused. The
governor then undertook to do it on his own authority. The
troops had already landed, under cover of the ships of war, to
the number of a thousand men. Some of them appeared to demand
an entrance into the Manufactory House; but the tenants were
encouraged to keep possession; nor did the governor venture to
use force. One of the regiments encamped on the common; for a
part of the other regiment, which had no tents, the temporary
use of Faneuil Hall was reluctantly yielded; to the rest of
it, the Town House, used also as a State House, all except the
council chamber, was thrown open by the governor's order. It
was Sunday. The Town House was directly opposite the
meeting-house of the First Church. Cannon were planted in
front of it; sentinels were stationed in the streets; the
inhabitants were challenged as they passed. The devout were
greatly aggravated and annoyed by the beating of drums and the
marching of the troops. Presently Gage came to Boston to urge
the provision of quarters. The council directed his attention
to the terms of the act, and referred him to the selectmen. As
the act spoke only of justices of the peace, the selectmen
declined to take any steps in the matter. Bernard then
constituted what he called a Board of Justices, and required
them to find quarters; but they did not choose to exercise a
doubtful and unpopular authority. Gage was finally obliged to
quarter the troops in houses which he hired for the purpose,
and to procure out of his own military chest the firing,
bedding, and other articles mentioned in the Quartering Act,
the council having declined to order any expenditure for those
purposes, on the ground that the appropriation of money
belonged exclusively to the General Court."
R. Hildreth, History of the U. S., chapter 29 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
R. Frothingham, Life and Times of Joseph Warren, chapter 6.
T. Hutchinson, History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay,
1749-1774, pages 202-217.
{301}
BOSTON: A. D. 1769.
The patriots threatened and Virginia speaking out.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1769.
BOSTON: A. D. 1770.
Soldiers and citizens in collision.
The "Massacre."
Removal of the troops.
"As the spring of the year 1770 appeared, the 14th and 29th
regiments had been in Boston about seventeen months. The 14th
was in barracks near the Brattle Street Church; the 29th was
quartered just south of King Street; about midway between
them, in King Street, and close at hand to the town-house, was
the main guard, whose nearness to the public buildings had
been a subject of great annoyance to the people. ... One is
forced to admit ... that a good degree of discipline was
maintained; no blood had as yet been shed by the soldiers,
although provocations were constant, the rude element in the
town growing gradually more aggressive as the soldiers were
never allowed to use their arms. Insults and blows with fists
were frequently taken and given, and cudgels also came into
fashion in the brawls. Whatever awe the regiments had inspired
at their first coming had long worn off. In particular the
workmen of the rope-walks and ship-yards allowed their tongues
the largest license and were foremost in the encounters. About
the 1st of March fights of unusual bitterness had occurred
near Grey's rope-walk, not far from the quarters of the 29th,
between the hands of the rope-walk and soldiers of that
regiment, which had a particularly bad reputation. The
soldiers had got the worst of it, and were much irritated.
Threats of revenge had been made, which had called out
arrogant replies, and signs abounded that serious trouble was
not far off. From an early hour on the evening of the 5th of
March the symptoms were very ominous. ... At length an
altercation began in King Street between a company of lawless
boys and a few older brawlers on the one side, and the
sentinel, who paced his beat before the custom-house, on the
other. ... The soldier retreated up the steps of the
custom-house and called out for help. A file of soldiers was
at once despatched from the main guard, across the street, by
Captain Preston, officer of the guard, who himself soon
followed to the scene of trouble. A coating of ice covered the
ground, upon which shortly before had fallen a light snow. A
young moon was shining; the whole transaction, therefore, was
plainly visible. The soldiers, with the sentinel, nine in
number, drew up in line before the people, who greatly
outnumbered them. The pieces were loaded and held ready, but
the mob, believing that the troops would not use their arms
except upon requisition of a civil magistrate, shouted coarse
insults, pressed upon the very muzzles of the pieces, struck
them with sticks, and assaulted the soldiers with balls of
ice. In the tumult precisely what was said and done cannot be
known. Many affidavits were taken in the investigation that
followed, and, as always at such times, the testimony was most
contradictory. Henry Knox, afterwards the artillery general,
at this time a bookseller, was on the spot and used his
influence with Preston to prevent a command to fire. Preston
declared that he never gave the command. The air, however, was
full of shouts, daring the soldiers to fire, some of which may
have been easily understood as commands, and at last the
discharge came. If it had failed to come, indeed, the
forbearance would have been quite miraculous. Three were
killed outright, and eight were wounded, only one of whom,
Crispus Attucks, a tall mulatto who faced the soldiers,
leaning on a stick of cordwood, had really taken any part in
the disturbance. The rest were bystanders or were hurrying
into the street, not knowing the cause of the tumult. ... A
wild confusion ... took possession of the town. The
alarm-bells rang frantically; on the other hand the drums of
the regiments thundered to arms. ... What averted a fearful
battle in the streets was the excellent conduct of
Hutchinson"--the lieutenant-governor, who made his way
promptly to the scene, caused the troops to be sent back to
their barracks, ordered the arrest of Captain Preston and the
nine soldiers who had done the firing, and began an
investigation of the affair the same night. The next day a
great town meeting was held, and, as crowds from the
surrounding towns pressed in, it was adjourned from Faneuil
Hall to the Old South Church, and overflowed in the
neighboring streets. A formal demand for the removal of the
troops was sent to the governor and council by a committee
which had Samuel Adams at its head. Governor Hutchinson
disclaimed authority over the troops; but their commanding
officer, Colonel Dalrymple, proposed to compromise by sending
away the 29th regiment and retaining the 14th. As the
committee returned to the meeting with this proposal, through
the crowd, Adams dropped right and left the words, "Both
regiments or none."--"Both regiments or none." So he put into
the mouths of the people their reply, which they shouted as
with one voice when the report of the committee was made to
them. There was a determination in the cry which overcame even
the obstinacy of Governor Hutchinson, and the departure of
both regiments was ordered that same day. "In England the
affair was regarded as a 'successful bully' of the whole power
of the government by the little town, and when Lord North
received details of these events he always referred to the
14th and 29th as the 'Sam Adams regiments.'"
J. K. Hosmer, Samuel Adams, chapter 11.
ALSO IN:
R. Frothingham, Life and Times of Joseph Warren, chapter
6.
R. Frothingham, The Sam Adams Regiments (Atlantic
Monthly, volume 9, 10, and 12; 1862-63).
J. Q. Adams, Life of John Adams, chapter 3 (volume l).
T. Hutchinson, History of the Province of Mass. Bay,
1749-1774, pages 270-280.
H. Niles, Principles and Acts of the Revolution
(Centennial edition), pages 15-79.
F. Kedder, History of the Boston Massacre.
BOSTON: A. D. 1770.
The fair trial of the soldiers.
"The episode [of the affray of March 5th] had ... a sequel
which is extremely creditable to the American people. It was
determined to try the soldiers for their lives, and public
feeling ran so fiercely against them that it seemed as if
their fate was sealed. The trial, however, was delayed for
seven months, till the excitement had in some degree subsided.
Captain Preston very judiciously appealed to John Adams, who
was rapidly rising to the first place both among the lawyers
and the popular patriots of Boston, to undertake his defence.
Adams knew well how much he was risking by espousing so
unpopular a cause, but he knew also his professional duty,
and, though violently opposed to the British government, he
was an eminently honest, brave, and humane man.
{302}
In conjunction with Josiah Quincy, a young lawyer who was also
of the patriotic party, he undertook the invidious task, and he
discharged it with consummate ability. ... There was abundant
evidence that the soldiers had endured gross provocation and
some violence. If the trial had been the prosecution of a
smuggler or a seditious writer, the jury would probably have
decided against evidence, but they had no disposition to shed
innocent blood. Judges, counsel, and jurymen acted bravely and
honourably. All the soldiers were acquitted, except two, who
were found guilty of manslaughter, and who escaped with very
slight punishment. It is very remarkable that after Adams had
accepted the task of defending the incriminated soldiers, he
was elected by the people of Boston as their representative in
the Assembly, and the public opinion of the province appears
to have fully acquiesced in the verdict. In truth, although no
people have indulged more largely than the Americans in
violent, reckless, and unscrupulous language, no people have
at every period of their history been more signally free from
the thirst for blood, which in moments of great political
excitement has been often shown both in England and France."
W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 12 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
J. Adams, Autobiography (Works, volume 2, page 230).
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England,
1713-1783, volume 5, page 269.
BOSTON: A. D 1773.
The Tea Party.
"News reached Boston in the spring of this year [1773] that
the East India Company, which was embarrassed by the
accumulation of tea in England, owing to the refusal of the
Americans to buy it, had induced parliament to permit its
exportation to America without the payment of the usual duty
[See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772-1773]. This was
intended to bribe the colonists to buy; for there had been a
duty both in England and in America. That in England was six
pence a pound, that in America three pence. Ships were laden
and sent to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston,
and they were now expected to arrive in a short time. ... On
the 28th of November, 1773, which was Sunday, the first
tea-ship (the 'Dartmouth ') entered the harbor [of Boston].
The following morning the citizens were informed by placard
that the 'worst of plagues, the detested tea,' had actually
arrived, and that a meeting was to be held at nine in the
morning, at Faneuil Hall, for the purpose of making 'a united
and successful resistance to this last, worst, and most
destructive measure of administration.' The Cradle of Liberty
was not large enough to contain the crowd that was called
together, Adams rose and made a stirring motion expressing
determination that the tea should not be landed, and it was
unanimously agreed to. The meeting then adjourned to the Old
South meeting-house, where the motion was repeated, and again
adopted without an opposing voice. The owner of the ship
protested in vain that the proceedings were illegal; a watch
of twenty-five persons was set, to see that the intentions of
the citizens were not evaded, and the meeting adjourned to the
following morning. The throng at that time was as great as
usual, and while the deliberations were going on, a message
was received from the governor, through the sheriff, ordering
them to cease their proceedings. It was voted not to follow
the advice, and the sheriff was hissed and obliged to retreat
discomfited. It was formally resolved that any person
importing tea from England should be deemed an enemy to his
country, and it was declared that at the risk of their lives
and properties the landing of the tea should be prevented, and
its return effected. It was necessary that some positive
action should be taken in regard to the tea within twenty days
from its arrival, or the collector of customs would confiscate
ships and cargoes. ... The twenty days would expire on the
16th of December. On the fourteenth a crowded meeting was held
at the Old South, and the importer was enjoined to apply for a
clearance to allow his vessel to return with its cargo. He
applied, but the collector refused to give an answer until the
following day. The meeting therefore adjourned to the 16th,
the last day before confiscation would be legal, and before
the tea would be placed under protection of the ships of war
in the harbor. There was another early morning meeting, and
7,000 people thronged about the meeting-house, all filled with
a sense of the fact that something notable was to occur. The
importer appeared and reported that the collector refused a
clearance. He was then directed to ask the governor for a pass
to enable him to sail by the Castle. Hutchinson had retreated
to his mansion at Milton, and it would take some time to make
the demand. The importer started out in the cold of a New
England winter, apologized to his Excellency for his visit,
but assured him that it was involuntary. He received a reply
that no pass could be given him. ... It was six o'clock before
the importer returned, and a few candles were brought in to
relieve the fast-increasing darkness. He reported the
governor's reply, and Samuel Adams rose and exclaimed: 'This
meeting can do nothing more to save the country!' In an
instant there was a shout on the porch; there was a war-whoop
in response, and forty or fifty of the men disguised as
Indians rushed out of the doors, down Milk Street towards
Griffin's (afterwards Liverpool) Wharf, where the vessels lay.
The meeting was declared dissolved, and the throng followed
their leaders, forming a determined guard about the wharf. The
'Mohawks' entered the vessel; there was tugging at the ropes;
there was breaking of light boxes; there was pouring of
precious tea into the waters of the harbor. For two or three
hours the work went on, and three hundred and forty-two chests
were emptied. Then, under the light of the moon, the Indians
marched to the sound of fife and drum to their homes, and the
vast throng melted away, until not a man remained to tell of
the deed. The committee of correspondence held a meeting next
day, and Samuel Adams and four others were appointed to
prepare an account of the affair to be posted to other places.
Paul Revere, who is said to have been one of the 'Mohawks,'
was sent express to Philadelphia with the news, which was
received at that place on the 26th. It was announced by
ringing of bells, and there was every sign of joy. ... The
continent was universally stirred at last."
A. Gilman, The Story of Boston, chapter 23.
ALSO IN:
E. G. Porter, The Beginning of the Revolution (Memorial
History of Boston, volume 3, chapter 1).
B. J. Lossing, Field Book of the Revolution, volume 1, chapter
21.
T. Hutchinson, History of the Province of
303
Mass. Bay, 1749-1774, pages 429-440.
Same, Diary and Letters, page 138.
G. Bancroft, History of the U. S. (Author's last
revision), volume 3, chapter 34.
J. Kimball, The 100th Anniversary of the Destruction of
Tea (Essex Inst. Hist. Coll., volume 12, number 3).
BOSTON: A. D. 1774.
The Port Bill and the Massachusetts Act.
Commerce interdicted.
Town Meetings forbidden.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (MARCH-APRIL).
BOSTON: A. D. 1774.
The enforcement of the Port Bill and its effects.
Military occupation of the city by General Gage.
"The execution of this measure [the Port Bill] devolved on
Thomas Gage, who arrived at Boston May 13, 1774, as Captain
General and Governor of Massachusetts. He was not a stranger
in the colonies. He had exhibited gallantry in Braddock's
defeat. ... He had married in one of the most respectable
families in New York, and had partaken of the hospitalities of
the people of Boston. His manners were pleasing. Hence he
entered upon his public duties with a large measure of
popularity. But he took a narrow view of men and things about
him. ... General Gage, on the 17th of May, landed at the Long
Wharf and was received with much parade. ... On the first day
of June the act went into effect. It met with no opposition
from the people, and hence, there was no difficulty in
carrying it into rigorous execution. 'I hear from many,' the
governor writes, 'that the act has staggered the most
presumptuous; the violent party men seem to break, and people
to fall off from them.' Hence he looked for submission; but
Boston asked assistance from other colonies, and the General
Court requested him to appoint a day of fasting and prayer.
The loyalists felt uneasy at the absence of the army. ...
Hence a respectable force was soon concentrated in Boston. On
the 4th of June, the 4th or king's own regiment, and on the
15th the 43d regiment, landed at the Long Wharf and encamped
on the common." The 5th and 38th regiments arrived on the 4th
and 5th of July; the 59th regiment was landed at Salem August
6, and additional troops were ordered from New York, the
Jerseys and Quebec. "The Boston Port Bill went into operation
amid the tolling of bells, fasting and prayer. ... It bore
severely upon two towns, Boston and Charlestown, which had
been long connected by a common patriotism. Their laborers
were thrown out of employment, their poor were deprived of
bread, and gloom pervaded their streets. But they were cheered
and sustained by the large contributions sent from every
quarter for their relief, and by the noble words that
accompanied them. ... The excitement of the public mind was
intense; and the months of June, July, and August, were
characterized by varied political activity. Multitudes signed
a solemn league and covenant against the use of British goods.
The breach between the whigs and loyalists daily became wider.
Patriotic donations from every colony were on their way to the
suffering towns. Supplies for the British troops were refused.
... It was while the public mind was in this state of
excitement that other acts arrived which General Gage was
instructed to carry into effect." These were the acts which
virtually annulled the Massachusetts charter, which forbade
town meetings, and which provided for the sending of accused
persons to England or to other colonies for trial. "Should
Massachusetts submit to the new acts? Would the other colonies
see, without increased alarm, the humiliation of
Massachusetts? This was the turning-point of the Revolution.
It did not find the patriots unprepared. They had an
organization beyond the reach alike of proclamations from the
governors, or of circulars from the ministry. This was the
Committees of Correspondence, chosen in most of the towns in
legal town-meetings, or by the various colonial assemblies,
and extending throughout the colonies. ... The crisis called
for all the wisdom of these committees. A remarkable circular
from Boston addressed to the towns (July, 1774), dwelt upon the
duty of opposing the new laws; the towns, in their answers,
were bold, spirited, and firm and echoed the necessity of
resistance. Nor was this all. The people promptly thwarted the
first attempts to exercise authority under them. Such
councillors as accepted their appointments were compelled to
resign, or, to avoid compulsion, retired into Boston." General
Gage now began (in September) movements to secure the cannon
and powder in the neighborhood. Some 250 barrels of powder
belonging to the province were stealthily removed by his
orders from a magazine at Charlestown and two field-pieces
were carried away from Cambridge. "The report of this affair,
spreading rapidly, excited great indignation. The people
collected in large numbers, and many were in favor of
attempting to recapture the powder and cannon. Influential
patriots, however, succeeded in turning their attention in
another direction. ... Meantime the fact of the removal of the
powder became magnified into a report that the British had
cannonaded Boston, when the bells rang, beacon-fires blazed on
the hills, the neighbor colonies were alarmed, and the roads
were filled with armed men hastening to the point of supposed
danger. These demonstrations opened the eyes of the governor
to the extent of the popular movement. ... General Gage saw no
hope of procuring obedience but by the power of arms; and the
patriot party saw no safety in anything short of military
preparation. Resistance to the acts continued to be manifested
in every form. On the 9th of September the memorable Suffolk
resolves [drawn by Joseph Warren] were adopted [by a
convention of Suffolk county, which embraced Boston] ... and
these were succeeded by others in other counties equally bold
and spirited. These resolves were approved by the Continental
Congress, then in session. Everywhere the people either
compelled the unconstitutional officers to resign, or opposed
every attempt to exercise authority, whether by the governor
or constable. They also made every effort to transport
ammunition and stores to places of security. Cannon and
muskets were carried secretly out of Boston. The guns were
taken from an old battery at Charlestown, where the navy yard
is, ... silently, at night. ... General Gage immediately began
to fortify Boston Neck. This added intensity to the
excitement. The inhabitants became alarmed at so ominous a
movement; and, on the 5th of September, the selectmen waited
on the general, represented the public feeling, and requested
him to explain his object. The governor stated in reply that
his object was to protect his majesty's troops and his
majesty's subjects; and that he had no intention to stop up
the avenue, or to obstruct the free passage over it, or to do
anything hostile against the inhabitants. He went on with the
works and soon mounted on them two twenty-four pounders and
eight nine pounders."
R. Frothingham, History of the Siege of Boston, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
R. Frothingham, Life and Times of Joseph Warren, chapter 11,
and appendix 1 (giving text of the Suffolk Resolves).
W. V. Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, volume 2, pages 164-232.
W. Tudor, Life of James Otis, chapter 27-29.
{304}
BOSTON: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of war.
Lexington.
Concord.
The British troops beleaguered in the city.
Battle of Bunker Hill.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
BOSTON: A. D. 1775-1776.
The siege directed by Washington.
Evacuation of the city by the British.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776.
----------BOSTON: End----------
BOSWORTH, Battle of (A. D. 1485).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1483-1485.
BOTANY BAY.
See AUSTRALIA: A. D, 1601-1800.
BOTHWELL BRIDGE, Battle of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (JUNE).
BOTOCUDOS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.
BOUCHAIN, Marlborough's capture of (1711).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1710-1712.
BOUIDES, The.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 815-945;
Also, TURKS (THE SELJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063;
Also, SAMANIDES.
BOULANGER, General, The intrigues of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.
BOULE, The.
The Council of Chiefs in Homeric Greece.
G. Grote, History of Greece, chapter 20.
See, also, AREOPAGUS.
BOULOGNE: Origin.
See GESORIACUM.
BOULOGNE: A. D. 1801.
Bonaparte's preparations for the invasion of England.
Nelson's attack.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
BOULON, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).
BOUQUET'S EXPEDITION.
See PONTIAC'S WAR.
BOURBON, The Constable:
His treason and his attack on Rome.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523, 1523-1525, 1525-1526;
And ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527, 1527.
BOURBON:
Origin of the name.
See BOIANS;
also ROME: B. C. 390-347.
BOURBON, The House of:
Its origin.
From King Louis IX. (St. Louis), of France, "through his last
male child, Robert de France, Comte de Clermont, sprang the
House of Bourbon. An ancient barony, the inheritance of
Béatrix, wife of this prince, was erected into a dukedom in
favour of Louis, his son, and gave to his descendants the name
which they have retained, that of France being reserved for
the Royal branch. ... The House which had the honour of
supplying sovereigns to our country was called 'France.' But
our kings, jealous of that great name, reserved it for their
own sons and grandsons. Hence the designation 'fils' and
'petit-fils de France.' The posterity of each 'fils de France'
formed a cadet branch which took its name from the title borne
by its head, Valois, Artois, Bourbon, &c. At the time of the
accession of Henry IV. the name of Bourbon remained with those
younger branches of Condé and Montpensier, which had sprung
from the main branch before the death of Henry III. But Henry
IV.'s children, those of Louis XIII., and those of their
successors in the throne, were surnamed 'de France'; whilst in
conformity with the law the descendants of Louis XIII.'s
second son received the surname d' Orleans, from the title
borne by their grandfather. ... Possessors of vast territories
which they [the Bourbons] owed more to family alliances than to
the generosity of kings, they had known how to win the
affection of their vassals. Their magnificent hospitality drew
around them a numerous and brilliant nobility. Thus the
'hôtel' of those brave and august princes, the 'gracieux ducs
de Bourbon,' as our ancient poet called them, was considered
the best school in which a young nobleman could learn the
profession of arms. The order of the Écu, instituted by one of
them, had been coveted and worn by the bravest warriors of
France. Sufficiently powerful to outshine the rank and file of
the nobility, they had at the same time neither the large
estates nor the immense power which enabled the Dukes of
Bourgogne, of Bretagne, and other great vassals, to become the
rivals or the enemies of the royal authority." The example of
the treason of the Constable Bourbon [see FRANCE: A. D.
1520-1523] "was not followed by any of the princes of his
House. ... The property of the Connétable was definitely
alienated from his House, and Vendôme [his brother] did not
receive the hereditary possessions of the Dukes d' Alençon, to
which his wife was entitled. He died on the 25th of March,
1538, leaving but a scanty patrimony to his numerous
descendants. ... Five only of his sons obtained their
majority. ... Two of these princes founded families: Antoine
[Duc de Vendôme and afterwards King of Navarre through his
marriage with Jeanne d' Albret, see NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563],
father of Henry IV., who was the ancestor of all the Bourbons
now living, and Louis [Prince de Condé, born 1530], who was
the root of the House of Condé and all its branches."
Duc d' Aumale, History of the Princes of the House of
Condé, book 1, chapter 1, and foot-note.
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1327.
BOURBON: The Spanish House.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700, and 1701-1702.
BOURBON FAMILY COMPACT,
The First.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1733.
The Second.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).
The Third.
See FRANCE: A. D: 1761 (AUGUST).
BOURGEOIS.--BOURG.
In France, "the word Bourg originally meant any aggregation of
houses, from the greatest city to the smallest hamlet. But ...
the word shifted its meaning, and came to signify an
assemblage of houses surrounded with walls. Secondly, the word
Bourgeois also was at first used as synonymous with the
inhabitant of a bourg. Afterward, when corporate franchises
were bestowed on particular bourgs, the word acquired a sense
corresponding with that of the English designation Burgess;
that is a person entitled to the privileges of a municipal
corporation. Finally, the word Bourgeoisie, in its primitive
sense, was the description of the burgesses when spoken of
collectively. But, in its later use, the word would be best
rendered into English by our term citizenship; that is, the
privilege of franchise of being a burgess."
Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France, lecture 5.
{305}
BOURGES,
Origin of.
The city of Bourges, France, was originally the capital city
of the Gallic tribe of the Bituriges, and was called Avaricum.
"As with many other Gaulish towns, the original name became
exchanged for that of the people, i. e., Bituriges, and thence
the modern Bourges and the name of the province, Berri."
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 12.
See, also, ÆDUI,
and GAUL: B. C. 58-51.
BOUVINES, Battle of (A. D. 1214).
The battle of Bouvines, fought at Bouvines, in Flanders, not
far from Tournay, on the 27th of August, A. D. 1214, was one
of the important battles of European history. On one side were
the French, led by their king Philip Augustus, and fighting
ostensibly as the champions of the Pope and the church. On the
other side was an allied army of English, under king John, of
Germans, under Otho, the Guelf--one of two rival claimants of
the imperial crown--and of Flemings and Lotharingians, led by
their several lords. Philip Augustus had expelled the English
king from his Norman dukedom and caused a court of the peers
of France to declare the title forfeit. From that success his
ambition rose so high that he had aspired to the conquest of
the English crown. A terrible pope--Innocent III.--had
approved his ambition and encouraged it; for John, the
miserable English king, had given provocations to the church
which had brought the thunders of the Vatican upon his head.
Excommunicated, himself, his kingdom under interdict,--the
latter offered itself a tempting prey to the vigorous French
king, who posed as the champion of the pope. He had prepared a
strong army and a fleet for the invasion of England; but fate
and papal diplomacy had baffled his schemes. At the last
moment, John had made a base submission, had meekly
surrendered his kingdom to the pope and had received it back
as a papal fief. Whereupon the victorious pope commanded his
French champion to forego his intended attack. Philip, under
these circumstances, determined to use the army he had
assembled against a troublesome and contumacious vassal, the
count of Flanders. The pope approved, and Flanders was
overrun. King John led an English force across the channel to
the help of the Flemish count, and Otho, the German king or
emperor, who was king John's nephew, joined the coalition, to
antagonize France and the pope. The battle of Bouvines was the
decisive conflict of the war. It humbled, for the time, the
independent spirit of Flanders, and several remoter
consequences can be traced to it. It was "the first real
French victory. It roused the national spirit as nothing else
could have roused it; it was the nation's first taste of
glory, dear above all things to the French heart. ... The
battle somewhat broke the high spirit of the barons: the
lesser barons and churches grouped themselves round the king;
the greater lords came to feel their weakness in the presence
of royalty. Among the incidental consequences of the day of
Bouvines was the ruin of Otho's ambition. He fled from the
field into utter obscurity. He retired to the Hartz mountains,
and there spent the remaining years of his life in private.
King John, too, was utterly discredited by his share in the
year's campaign. To it may partly be traced his humiliation
before his barons, and the signing of the Great Charter in the
following year at Runnymede."
G. W. Kitchin, History of France,
book 3, chapter 7, section 4.
"The battle of Bouvines was not the victory of Philip Augustus
alone, over a coalition of foreign princes; the victory was
the work of king and people, barons, burghers, and peasants,
of Ile de France, of Orleanness, of' Picardy, of Normandy, of
Champagne, and of Burgundy. ... The victory of Bouvines marked

the commencement of the time at which men might speak, and
indeed did speak, by one single name, of 'the French.' The
nation in France and the kingship in France on that day rose
out of and above the feudal system."
F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 18.
See, also,
ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250,
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1205-1213, and 1215.
BOVATE, OR OXGANG.
"Originally as much as an ox-team could plough in a year.
Eight Bovates are usually said to have made a Carucate, but
the number of acres which made a Bovate are variously stated
in different records from 8 to 24."
N. H. Nicolas, Notitia Historica, page 134.
BOVIANUM, Battle of (B. C. 88).
See ROME: B. C. 90-88.
BOWIDES, The.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 815-945;
also, SAMANIDES;
also, TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063.
BOYACA, Battle of (1819).
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.
BOYARS.
"In the old times, when Russia was merely a collection of
independent principalities, each reigning prince was
surrounded by a group of armed men, composed partly of Boyars,
or large landed proprietors, and partly of knights, or
soldiers of fortune. These men, who formed the Noblesse of the
time, were to a certain extent under the authority of the
Prince, but they were by no means mere obedient, silent
executors of his will. The Boyars might refuse to take part in
his military expeditions. ... Under the Tartar domination this
political equilibrium was destroyed. When the country had been
conquered, the princes became servile vassals of the Khan, and
arbitrary rulers towards their own subjects. The political
significance of the nobles was thereby greatly diminished."
D. M. Wallace, Russia, chapter 17.
BOYNE, Battle of the (1690).
See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.
BOYS IN BLUE.--BOYS IN GRAY.
Soldier nicknames of the American Civil War.
"During the first year of the war [of the Rebellion, in the
United States] the Union soldiers commonly called their
opponents 'Rebs' and 'Secesh'; in 1862, 'Confeds'; in 1863,
'Gray-backs' and 'Butternuts'; and in 1864, 'Johnnies.' The
nickname 'Butternuts' was given the Confederates on account of
their homespun clothes, dyed reddish-brown with a dye made of
butternut bark. The last name, 'Johnnies,' is said to have
originated in a quarrel between two pickets, which began by
the Union man's saying that the Confederates depended on
England to get them out of their scrape. ... The Union man ...
said that a 'Reb' was no better than a Johnny Bull, anyhow.
... The name stuck, and in the last part of the war the
Confederate soldiers were almost universally called
'Johnnies.' Throughout the war the Confederates dubbed all the
Union soldiers 'Yankees' and 'Yanks,' without any reference to
the part of the country they came from. ... Other nicknames
for Union soldiers, occasionally used, were 'Feds,' 'Blue
Birds' and 'Blue Bellies.' Since the war the opponents have
been commonly called 'Boys in Blue' and 'Boys in Gray.'"
J. D. Champlin, Jr., Young Folks' History of the War for
the Union, page 137.
{306}
BOZRA.
See CARTHAGE: DIVISIONS, &c.
BOZZARIS, Marco, The death of.
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
BRABANT: Mythical Explanation of the name.
See ANTWERP.
BRABANT: 4th century.
First settlement of the Franks.
See TOXANDRIA.
BRABANT: 9th century.
Known as Basse Lorraine.
See LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.
BRABANT: A. D. 1096-1099.
Duke Godfrey de Bouillon in the First Crusade, and his kingdom
of Jerusalem.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099;
and JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.
BRABANT: 12th to 15th centuries.
The county and duchy.
From the beginning of the 12th century, the county, afterwards
the duchy, of Brabant, existed under its own counts and dukes,
until the beginning of the 15th century, when it drifted under
the influences which at that time were drawing all the
Netherland States within the sphere of the sovereignty of the
Burgundian dukes.
BRABANT: A. D. 1430.
Acquisition by the House of Burgundy.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1428-1430.
----------BRABANT: End----------
BRACCATI, The.
See ROME: B. C. 275.
BRACHYCEPHALIC MEN.
See DOLICHOCEPHALIC.
BRADDOCK'S DEFEAT.
See Ohio (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.
BRADFORD, Governor, and the Plymouth Colony.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1621, and after.
BRADFORD'S PRESS.
See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1535-1709, 1704-1729,
and PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.
BRAGANZA, The House of: A. D. 1640.
Accession to the throne of Portugal.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.
BRAGG, General Braxton.
Invasion of Kentucky.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER:
TENNESSEE--KENTUCKY).
The Battle of Stone River.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862-1863
(DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).
The Tullahoma Campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY:
TENNESSEE).
Chickamauga.
The Chattanooga Campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER,
and OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
BRAHMANISM.
See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE AHYAS.
BRAHMANS.
See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.
Also, INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
BRANCHIDÆ, The.
See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 928-1142.
Beginnings of the Margravate.
"A. D. 928, Henry the Fowler, marching across the frozen bogs,
took Brannibor, a chief fortress of the Wends; first mention
in human speech of the place now called Brandenburg: Bor or
'Burg of the Brenns' (if there ever was any Tribe of
Brenns,--Brennus, there as elsewhere, being name for King or
Leader); 'Burg of the Woods,' say others,--who as little know.
Probably, at that time, a town of clay huts, with ditch and
palisaded sod-wall round it; certainly 'a chief fortress of
the Wends,'--who must have been a good deal surprised at sight
of Henry on the rimy winter morning near a thousand years ago.
... That Henry appointed due Wardenship in Brannibor was in
the common course. Sure enough, some Murkgraf must take charge
of Brannibor,--he of the Lausitz eastward, for example, or he
of Salzwedel westward:--that Brannibor, in time, will itself
be found the fit place, and have its own Markgraf of
Brandenburg; this, and what in the next nine centuries
Brandenburg will grow to, Henry is far from surmising. ... In
old books are lists of the primitive Markgraves of
Brandenburg, from Henry's time downward; two sets, Markgraves
of the Witekind race,' and of another: but they are altogether
uncertain, a shadowy intermittent set of Markgraves, both the
Witekind set and the Non-Witekind; and truly, for a couple of
centuries, seem none of them to have been other than subaltern
Deputies, belonging mostly to Lausitz or Salzwedel; of whom
therefore we can say nothing here, but must leave the first
two hundred years in their natural gray state,--perhaps
sufficiently conceivable by the reader. ... The
Ditmarsch-Stade kindred, much slain in battle with the
Heathen, and otherwise beaten upon, died out, about the year
1130 (earlier perhaps, perhaps later, for all is shadowy
still); and were succeeded in the Salzwedel part of their
function by a kindred called 'of Ascanien and Ballenstadt';
the Ascanier or Anhalt Margraves; whose History, and that of
Brandenburg, becomes henceforth articulate to us. ... This
Ascanien, happily, has nothing to do with Brute of Troy or the
pious Æneas's son; it is simply the name of a most ancient
Castle (etymology unknown to me, ruins still dimly traceable)
on the north slope of the Hartz Mountains; short way from
Aschersleben,--the Castle and Town of Aschersleben are, so to
speak, a second edition of Ascanien. ... The kindred, called
Grafs and ultimately Herzogs (Dukes) of 'Ascanien and
Ballenstädt,' are very famous in old German History,
especially down from this date. Some reckon that they had
intermittently been Markgrafs, in their region, long before
this; which is conceivable enough; at all events it is very
plain they did now attain the Office in Salzwedel (straightway
shifting it to Brandenburg); and held it continuously, it and
much else that lay adjacent, for centuries, in a highly
conspicuous manner. In Brandenburg they lasted for about
two-hundred years."
T. Carlyle, Frederick the Great, book 2, chapter 3-4.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1142-1152.
The Electorate.
"He they call 'Albert the Bear (Albrecht der Bär),' first of
the Ascanien Markgraves of Brandenburg;--first wholly
definite Markgrave of Brandenburg that there is; once a very
shining figure in the world, though now fallen dim enough
again, ... got the Northern part of what is still called
Saxony, and kept it in his family; got the Brandenburg
Countries withal, got the Lausitz; was the shining figure and
great man of the North in his day. The Markgrafdom of
Salzwedel (which soon became of Brandenburg) he very naturally
acquired (A. D. 1142 or earlier); very naturally, considering
what Saxon and other honours and possessions he had already
got hold of. We can only say, it was the luckiest of events
for Brandenburg, and the beginning of all the better destinies
it has had.
{307}
A conspicuous Country ever since in the world, and which grows
ever more so in our late times. ... He transferred the
Markgrafdom to Brandenburg, probably as more central in his
wide lands; Salzwedel is henceforth the led Markgrafdom or
Marck, and soon falls out of notice in the world. Salzwedel is
called henceforth ever since the 'Old Marck (Alte Marck,
Altmarck)'; the Brandenburg countries getting the name of 'New
Marck.' ... Under Albert the Markgrafdom had risen to be an
Electorate withal. The Markgraf of Brandenburg was now
furthermore the Karfürst of Brandenburg: officially
'Arch-treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire'; and one of the
Seven who have a right (which became about this time an
exclusive one for those Seven) to choose, to 'kieren' the
Romish Kaiser; and who are therefore called 'Kur-Princes,'
Kurfürste or Electors, as the highest dignity except the
Kaiser's own."
T. Carlyle, Frederick the Great, book 2, chapter 4.
See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168-1417.
Under the Ascanian, the Bavarian and the Luxemburg lines, to
the first of the Hohenzollern.
Albert the Bear was succeeded in 1168 by his son Otho. "In
1170, as it would appear, the name of Brandenburg was
substituted for that of North Mark, which had ceased to
describe more than the original nucleus of the colony, now one
of the several districts into which it was divided. The city
and territory of Brandenburg were not probably included in the
imperial grant, but were inherited from the Wendish prince,
Pribislaw, whom Albert had converted to Christianity. ...
Under Otho II., brother of the preceding, the family
inheritance was sorely mismanaged. The Margrave becoming
involved in some quarrel with the See of Magdeburg, the
Archbishop placed him under the ban; and as the price of
release Otho was required to accept the Suzerainty of the
prelate for the older and better part of his dominions. His
brother and successor, Albert II., was also unfortunate in the
beginning of his career: but recovered the favor of the
Emperor, and restored the prestige of his house before his
death. ... Very important acquisitions were made during the
reign of these two princes. The preoccupations of the King of
Denmark gave them a secure foothold in Pomerania, which the
native nobility acknowledged; the frontiers were pushed
eastward to the Oder, where the New Mark was organized, and
the town of Frankfort was laid out; purchase put them in
possession of the district of Lebus; and the bride of Otho
III., a Bohemian princess, brought him as her dowry an
extensive region on the Upper Spree with several thriving
villages--all this in spite of the division of power and
authority. ... Otho III. died in 1267, John one year later;
and a new partition of the estate was made between their
several sons, the oldest, Otho IV., receiving, however, the
title and prerogatives of head of the house." The last
margrave of the Ascanian line, Waldemar, died in 1310. "His
cousin and only heir, Henry, was a minor, and survived him but
a year." Then "a host of claimants arose for the whole or
parts of the Mark. The estates showed at first a gallant
devotion to the widow, and intrusted the reins of authority to
her; but she repaid this fidelity by hastily espousing the
Duke of Brunswick, and transferring her rights to him. The
transaction was not, however, ratified by the estates, and the
Duke failed to enforce it by arms. Pomerania threw off the
yoke which it had once unwillingly accepted; Bohemia reclaimed
the wedding portion of Otho's bride; the Duke of Liegnitz
sought to recover Lebus, although it had once been regularly
sold; and in the general scramble the Church, through its
local representatives, fought with all the energy of mere
worldly robbers. But in this crisis the Emperor forgot neither
the duties of his station nor the interests of his house.
Louis II. of Bavaria then wore the purple. By feudal law a
vacant fief reverted to its suzerain. ... It was not therefore
contrary to law, nor did it shock the moral sense of the age,
when Louis drew the Mark practically into his own possession
by conferring it nominally upon his minor son. ... During the
minority of Louis the Margrave, the province was administered
by Louis the Emperor, and with some show of vigor." But
troubles so thickened about the Emperor, in his conflict with
the House of Austria, on the one hand, and with the Pope on
the other [see GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1317], that he could not
continue the protection of his son. The Mark of Brandenburg
was invaded by the King of Poland, and its Margrave "watched
the devastation in helpless dismay." The people defended
themselves. "The young city of Frankfort was the leader in the
tardy but successful uprising. The Poles were expelled; the
citizens had for the time saved the Mark. ... The Margrave
finally wearied even of the forms of authority, and sold his
unhappy dominions to his two brothers, another Louis and Otho.
In the meantime his father had died. The Electors--or five of
them--had already deposed him and chosen in his place Charles
of Moravia, a prince of the house of Luxemburg, as his
successor. He became respectably and even creditably known in
history as Charles IV. ... Although he failed in the attempt
to subdue by arms the Margrave of Brandenburg, who had
naturally espoused his father's cause, he was persistent and
ingenious in diplomatic schemes for overthrowing the House of
Bavaria and bringing the Mark under his own sceptre. ... From
Louis he procured ... a treaty of succession, by which he
should acquire Brandenburg in case of the death of that
Margrave and his brother Otho without heirs. His intrigues
were finally crowned with complete success. Louis died
suddenly in 1365. Otho, thenceforth alone in the charge,
vacillated between weak submission to the Emperor's will, and
spurts of petulant but feeble resistance; until Charles put an
end to the farce by invading the Mark, crushing the army of
the Margrave, and forcing him to an abject capitulation. In
1371, after a nominal rule of half a century, and for the
price of a meagre annuity, the Bavarian line transferred all
its rights to the family of Charles IV." Charles died in 1378.
His son Wenzel, "for whom the Mark had been destined in the
plans of Charles, acquired, meanwhile, the crown of Bohemia, a
richer prize, and Brandenburg passed to the next son,
Sigismond. The change was a disastrous one." Sigismond pawned
the Mark to his kinsman, Jobst, of Moravia, and it fell into
great disorder. "Imperial affairs during this period were in
scarcely less confusion. Wenzel of Bohemia had been chosen
emperor, and then deposed for obvious unfitness. Rupert, Count
Palatine, had next been ejected, and had died. Again the post
was vacant, and Sigismond, still the real Elector of
Brandenburg, ... issued successfully from the contest. His
good fortune was due in a conspicuous degree to the influence
and the money of Frederic, Burggrave of Nuremberg [see
HOHENZOLLERN, RISE OF THE HOUSE OF]; and it is to the credit
of Sigismond that he did not add ingratitude to his other
vices, but on his election as emperor hastened [1411] to make
his patron statthalter, or viceroy of the Mark." Six years
later, in 1417, Frederic was formally invested with the
sovereignty of the Mark, as Margrave and Elector.
H. Tuttle, History of Prussia to the Accession of
Frederick the Great, chapter 1 and 3.
{308}
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1355.
Declared an integral part of the Kingdom of Bohemia.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1355.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1417-1640.
Rising importance of the Hohenzollern family.
Acquisition of the Duchy of Prussia.
On being invested with the Electorate of Brandenburg,
Frederick of Nuremberg sold the office of Burggrave to the
Nurembergers and devoted himself to his new province.
"Temperate, just, and firm in his dealings, he succeeded in
reducing Brandenburg from anarchy to order. Already as deputy
for Sigismund he had begun the task. ... During the reign of
his son and successor, characteristically known as Frederick
Ironteeth [1440-1472], the strong hand was not relaxed; and
Brandenburg became thenceforward tamed to law and order. The
Electorate, which during the preceding century had been
curtailed by losses in war and by sales, began again to
enlarge its borders. The New March, which had been sold in the
days of Sigismund to the Teutonic Knights, was now [1455]
bought back from them in their need. ... Albert Achilles, the
brother and successor of Frederick II., was a man as powerful
and as able as his predecessor. By his accession the
principalities of Baireuth and Anspach, which had been
separated from the Electorate for the younger sons of
Frederick I., were reunited to it; and by a scheme of
cross-remainders new plans were laid for the acquisition of
territory. ... It was already understood that the Electorate
was to descend according to the law of primogeniture; but
Anspach and Baireuth were still reserved as appanages for
younger sons; and upon the death of Albert Achilles, in 1484,
his territories were again divided, and remained so for more
than a hundred years. The result of the division, however, was
to multiply and not to weaken the strength of the House. The
earlier years of the 16th century saw the Hohenzollerns rising
everywhere to power. Albert Achilles had been succeeded [1486]
by John, of whom little is known except his eloquence, and by
Joachim [1499], who was preparing to bear his part against the
Reformation. A brother of Joachim had become, in 1514, Elector
of Mentz; and the double vote of the family at the election of
Charles V. had increased their importance. The younger branch
was rising also to eminence. George of Brandenburg, Margrave
of Anspach, and grandson of Albert Achilles, was able in 1524
to purchase the Duchy of Jagerndorf in Silesia, and with it
the reversions to the principalities of Oppeln and Ratibor,
which eventually fell to him. His younger brother, Albert, had
been chosen in 1511 Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, and
was already converting his office into the hereditary Dukedom
of Prussia," which it became in 1525 (see POLAND: A. D.
1333-1572). "The Elector Joachim I. of Brandenburg is perhaps
the least prominent, but was not the least prudent, of his
family. Throughout his life he adhered to the old faith, and
preserved his dominions in tranquility. His son and successor,
Joachim II., to the joy of his people, adopted the new
religion [1539]; and found in the secularized bishoprics of
Brandenburg, Havelburg, and Lebus, some compensation for the
ecclesiastical Electorate which was about to pass, upon the
death of Albert of Mentz, from his family. But he also was
able to secure the continuance of peace. Distrustful of the
success of the League of Smalkald he refused to join in it,
and became chiefly known as a mediator in the struggles of the
time. The Electors John George [1571-1598] and Joachim
Frederick [1598-1608] followed the same policy of peace. ...
Peace and internal progress had characterized the 16th
century; war and external acquisitions were to mark the 17th.
The failure of the younger line in 1603 caused Bayreuth,
Anspach, and Jagerndorf to fall to the Elector Joachim
Frederick; but as they were re-granted almost at once to
younger sons, and never again reverted to the Electorate,
their acquisition became of little importance. The Margrave,
George Frederick, however, had held, in addition to his own
territories, the office of administrator for Albert Frederick,
second Duke of Prussia, who had become imbecile; and, by his
death, the Elector of Brandenburg became next of kin, and
claimed to succeed to the office. The admission of this claim
placed the Electors in virtual possession of the Duchy. By a
deed of co-infeoffment, which Joachim II. had obtained in 1568
from his father-in-law the King of Poland, they were heirs to
the Duchy upon failure of the younger line. ... Duke Albert
died in 1618; and Brandenburg and Prussia were then united
under the Elector John Sigismund. It was well that the Duchy
had been secured before the storm which was already gathering
over the Empire had burst. ... During the long struggle of the
Thirty Years' War, the history of Brandenburg is that of a
sufferer rather than an actor. ... George William, who died in
1640, bequeathed a desert to his successor. That successor was
Frederick William, to be known in history as the Great Elector."
C. F. Johnstone, Historical Abstracts, chapter 5.
ALSO IN: T. Carlyle, History of Frederick the Great.
book 3 (volume 1).
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1609.
The Jülich-Cleve contest.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1627.
Occupied by Wallenstein and the Imperial army.
See GERMANY: 1627-1629.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1630-1631.
Compulsory alliance of the Elector with Gustavus Adolphus of
Sweden.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631, and 1631.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1632.
Refusal to enter the Union of Heilbronn.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1634.
Desertion of the Protestant cause.
Alliance with the Emperor.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
{309}
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.
The Great Elector.
His development of the strength of the Electorate.
His successful wars.
His acquisition of the complete sovereignty of Prussia.
Fehrbellin.
"Frederic William, known in history as the Great Elector, was
only twenty years old when he succeeded his father. He found
everything in disorder: his country desolate, his fortresses
garrisoned by troops under a solemn order to obey only the
mandates of the Emperor, his army to be counted almost on the
fingers. His first care was to conclude a truce with the
Swedes; his second to secure his western borders by an
alliance with Holland; his third--not in order of action, for
in that respect it took first place--to raise the nucleus of
an army; his fourth, to cause the evacuation of his
fortresses. ... To allay the wrath of the Emperor, he
temporised until his armed force had attained the number of
8,000. That force once under arms, he boldly asserted his
position, and with so much effect that in the discussions
preceding the Peace of Westphalia he could exercise a
considerable influence. By the terms of that treaty, the part
of Pomerania known as Hinter Pommern, the principalities of
Magdeburg and Halberstadt, and the bishoprics of Minden and
Kammin were ceded to Brandenburg. ... The Peace once signed,
Frederic William set diligently to work to heal the disorders
and to repair the mischief which the long war had caused in
his dominions. ... He specially cherished his army. We have
seen its small beginning in 1640-42. Fifteen years later, in
1655, or seven years after the conclusion of the Peace of
Westphalia, it amounted to 25,000 men, well drilled and well
disciplined, disposing of seventy-two pieces of cannon. In the
times in which he lived he had need of such an army. In 1654,
Christina, the wayward and gifted daughter of Gustavus
Adolphus, had abdicated. Her successor on the throne of Sweden
was her cousin, Charles Gustavus, Duke of Zweibrücken. ... The
right of Charles Gustavus to the succession was, however,
contested by John Casimir, King of Poland. ... War ensued. In
that war the star of Charles Gustavus was in the ascendant,
and the unfortunate John Casimir was forced to abandon his own
dominions and to flee into Silesia. The vicinity of the two
rivals to his own outlying territories was, however, too near
not to render anxious Frederic William of Brandenburg. To
protect Prussia, then held in fief from the King of Poland, he
marched with 8,000 men to its borders. But even with such a
force he was unable, or perhaps, more correctly, he was
prudently unwilling, to resist the insistence put upon him at
Königsberg by the victorious King of Sweden (1656) to transfer
to him the feudal overlordship of that province. Great results
followed from this compliance. Hardly had the treaty been
signed, when John Casimir, returning from Silesia with an
Imperial army at his back, drove the Swedes from Poland, and
recovered his dominions. He did not evidently intend to stop
there. Then it was that the opportunity arrived to the Great
Elector. Earnestly solicited by the King of Sweden to aid him
in a contest which had assumed dimensions so formidable,
Frederic William consented, but only on the condition that he
should receive the Polish palatinates (Woiwodshaften) of Posen
and Kalisch as the price of a victorious campaign. He then
joined the King with his army, met the enemy at Warsaw, fought
with him close to that city a great battle, which lasted three
days (28th to 30th July 1656), and which terminated then,
thanks mainly to the pertinacity of the Brandenburgers--in the
complete defeat of the Poles. The victory gained, Frederic
William withdrew his troops. ... Again did John Casimir
recover from his defeat; again, aided by the Imperialists, did
he march to the front, reoccupy Warsaw, and take up a
threatening position opposite to the Swedish camp. The King of
Sweden beheld in this action on the part of his enemy the
prelude to his own certain destruction, unless by any means he
could induce the Elector of Brandenburg once more to save him.
He sent, then, urgent messengers after him to beg him to
return. The messengers found Frederic William at Labian. There
the Elector halted and there, joined the next day, 20th
November 1656, by King Charles Gustavus, he signed a treaty,
by which, on condition of his material aid in the war, the
latter renounced his feudal overlordship over Prussia, and
agreed to acknowledge the Elector and his male descendants as
sovereign dukes of that province. In the war which followed,
the enemies of Sweden and Brandenburg multiplied on every
side. The Danes and Lithuanians espoused the cause of John
Casimir. Its issue seemed to Frederic William more than
doubtful. He asked himself, then, whether--the new enemies who
had arisen being the enemies of Sweden and not of himself--he
had not more to gain by sharing in the victories of the Poles
than in the defeats of the Swedes. Replying to himself
affirmatively, he concluded, 29th September 1657, through the
intermediation of the Emperor, with the Poles, at Wehlau, a
treaty whereby the dukedom of Prussia was ceded in absolute
sovereignty to the Elector of Brandenburg and his male issue,
with reversion to Poland in case of the extinction of the
family of the Franconian Hohenzollerns; in return, Frederic
William engaged himself to support the Poles in their war
against Sweden with a corps of 4,000 men. But before this
convention could be acted upon, fortune had again smiled upon
Charles Gustavus. Turning in the height of winter against the
Danes, the King of Sweden had defeated them in the open field,
pursued them across the frozen waters of the Belt to Fünen and
Seeland, and had imposed upon their king the humiliating peace
of Roeskilde (1658). He seemed inclined to proceed still
further in the destruction of the ancient rival of his
country, when a combined army of Poles and Brandenburgers
suddenly poured through Mecklenburg into Holstein, drove
thence the Swedes, and gave them no rest till they had
evacuated likewise Schleswig and Jutland (1659). In a battle
which took place shortly afterwards on the island of Fünen, at
Nyborg, the Swedes suffered a defeat. This defeat made Charles
Gustavus despair of success, and he had already begun to treat
for peace, when death snatched him from the scene (January
1660). The negotiations which had begun, however, continued,
and finally peace was signed on the 1st May 1660, in the
monastery of Oliva, close to Danzig. This peace confirmed to
the Elector of Brandenburg his sovereign rights over the duchy
of Prussia. From this epoch dates the complete union of
Brandenburg and Prussia--a union upon which a great man was
able to lay the foundation of a powerful North German
Kingdom!" During the next dozen years, the Great Elector was
chiefly busied in establishing his authority in his dominions
and curbing the power of the nobles, particularly in Prussia.
{310}
In 1674, when Louis XIV. of France provoked war with
the German princes by his attack on the Dutch, Frederic
William led 20,000 men into Alsace to join the Imperial
forces. Louis then called upon his allies, the Swedes, to
invade Brandenburg, which they did, under General Wrangel, in
January, 1675. "Plundering and burning as they advanced, they
entered Havelland, the granary of Berlin, and carried their
devastations up to the very gates of that capital." The
Elector was retreating from Alsace before Turenne when he
heard of the invasion. He paused for some weeks, to put his
army in good condition, and then he hurried northwards, by
forced marches. The enemy was taken by surprise, and attacked
while attempting to retreat, near Fehrbellin, on the 18th of
June. After two hours of a tremendous hand-to-hand conflict,
"the right wing of the Swedes was crushed and broken; the
centre and left wing were in full retreat towards Fehrbellin.
The victors, utterly exhausted--they had scarcely quitted
their saddles for eleven days--were too worn out to pursue. It
was not till the following morning that, refreshed and
recovered, they followed the retreating foe to the borders of
Mecklenburg. ... The Great Elector promptly followed up his
victory till he had compelled the Swedes to evacuate all
Pomerania. Three years later, when they once more crossed the
border from Livonia, he forced them again to retreat; and
although in the treaty signed at St. Germain in 1670 he was
forced to renounce his Pomeranian conquests, he did not the
less establish the ultimate right of the State of which he was
the real founder to those lands on the Baltic for which he had
so hardly struggled at the negotiations which preceded the
Peace of Westphalia. When he died (9th May 1688) he left the
Kingdom already made in a position of prosperity sufficient to
justify his son and successor in assuming, thirteen years
later, on the anniversary of the victory of FehrbeIlin, the
title of King."
G. B. Malleson, The Battle Fields of Germany, chapter 8.
See, also, SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1648.
The Peace of Westphalia.
Loss of part of Pomerania.
Compensating acquisitions.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1672-1679.
In the Coalition against Louis XIV.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;
also NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1689-1696.
The war of the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, to 1695-1696.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1697.
The Treaty of Ryswick.
Restitutions by France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1700.
The Elector made King of Prussia.
See PRUSSIA: A. D. 1700.
----------BRANDENBURG: End----------
BRANDY STATION, OR FLEETWOOD. Battle of,
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JUNE: VIRGINIA).
BRANDYWINE, Battle of the (A. D. 1777).
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777
(JANUARY-DECEMBER).
BRANKIRKA, Battle of (1518).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.
BRANT, CHIEF, and the Indian warfare of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER),
and (JULY).
BRASIDAS IN CHALKIDIKE.
See GREECE: B. C. 424-421.
BRAZIL:
Origin of the name.
"As the most valuable part of the cargo which Americus
Vespucius carried back to Europe was the well-known dye-wood,
'Cæsalpina Braziliensis,'--called in the Portuguese language
'pau brazil,' on account of its resemblance to 'brazas,'
'coals of fire,'--the land whence it came was termed the 'land
of the brazil-wood'; and finally this appellation was
shortened to Brazil, and completely usurped the names Vera
Cruz, or Santa Cruz."
J. C. Fletcher and D. P. Kidder, Brazil and the
Brazilians, chapter 3.
See, also, AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1514.
BRAZIL:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.--GUARANI.--TUPUYAS;
also GUCK or Coco GROUP.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1500-1504.
Discovery, exploration of the coast and first settlement.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1499-1500, 1500-1514, and 1503-1504.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1510-1661.
Portuguese colonization and agriculture.
Introduction of Slavery.
The coming of the Jesuits.
Conquests of the Dutch, and the Portuguese recovery of them.
"Brazil, on which the Portuguese ships had been cast by
accident, had been found to unite in itself the capabilities
of every part of the world in which Europeans have settled,
though happily gold and silver had not yet been discovered,
and the colonists betook themselves from the first to
agriculture. 'The first permanent settlements on this coast
were made by Jews, exiled by the persecution of the
Inquisition; and the government supplemented these by sending
out criminals of all kinds. But gradually the consequence of
Brazil became recognized, and, as afterwards happened in New
England, the nobility at home asked to share the land among
themselves. Emmanuel would not countenance such a claim, but
this great prince died in 1521, and his successor, John III.,
extended to Brazil the same system which had been adopted in
Madeira and the Azores. The whole sea-coast of Brazil was
parcelled out by feudal grants. It was divided into
captaincies, each 50 leagues in length, with no limits in the
interior; and these were granted out as male fiefs, with
absolute power over the natives, such as at that time existed
over the serfs who tilled the soil in Europe. But the native
Brazilians were neither so easy a conquest as the Peruvians,
nor so easily induced to labour; and the Portuguese now began
to bring negros from the Guinea coast. This traffic in human
flesh had long been vigorously pursued in various parts of
Europe; the Portuguese now introduced it to America. The
settlers of Brazil were, properly speaking, the first European
colonists. For they sold their own possessions at home, and
brought their households with them to the new country. Thus
they gradually formed the heart of a new nation, whereas the
chief Spaniards always returned home after a certain tenure of
their offices, and those who remained in the colony descended
to the rank of the conquered natives. Many of those who came
to Brazil had already served in the expeditions to the East;
and they naturally perceived that the coast of America might
raise the productions of India. Hence Brazil early became a
plantation colony, and its prosperity is very much due to the
culture of the sugar cane.
{311}
The Portuguese were greatly assisted, both in
the East and the West, by the efforts of the newly founded
order of the Jesuits. ... John III. in [1549] sent out six of
the order with the first governor of Brazil. ... The Dutch,
made bold by their great successes in the East, now sought to
win the trade of Brazil by force of arms, and the success of
the East India Company encouraged the adventurers who
subscribed the funds for that of the West Indies, incorporated
in 1621. The Dutch Admiral, Jacob Willekens, successfully
assaulted San Salvador [Bahia] in 1624, and though the capital
was afterwards retaken by the intrepid Archbishop Texeira, one
half of the coast of Brazil submitted to the Dutch. Here, as
in the East, the profit of the company was the whole aim of
the Dutch, and the spirit in which they executed their design
was a main cause of its failure. ... But ... the profits of
the company ... rose at one time to [cent?] per cent. The
visions of the speculators of Amsterdam became greater; and
they resolved to become masters of all Brazil. ... The man
whom they despatched [1637] to execute this design was Prince
John Maurice of Nassau. ... In a short time he had greatly
extended the Dutch possessions. But the Stad-houder was
subject, not to the wise and learned men who sat in the
States-General, but to the merchants who composed the courts
of the company. They thought of nothing but their dividends;
they considered that Maurice kept up more troops and built
more fortresses than were necessary for a mercantile
community, and that he lived in too princely a fashion for one
in their service. Perhaps they suspected him of an intention
of slipping into that royal dignity which the feudal frame of
Brazilian society seemed to offer him. At any rate, in 1643,
they forced him to resign. A recent revolution had terminated
the subjection of Portugal to Spain, and the new king of
Portugal concluded a truce for ten years with Holland. War was
therefore supposed to be out of the question. ... But the
recall of Maurice was the signal for an independent revolt in
Brazil. Though the mother countries were at peace, war broke
out between the Dutch and the Portuguese of Brazil in 1645.
The Jesuits had long preached a crusade against the heretic
Dutch. ... John Ferdinand de Vieyra, a wealthy merchant of
Pernambuco, led a general uprising of the Brazilians, and
although the Dutch made a stubborn resistance, they received
no assistance from home; they were driven from one post after
another, until, in 1654, the last of the company's servants
quitted Brazil. The Dutch declared war against Portugal; but
in 1661 peace was made, and the Dutch sold their claims for
8,000,000 florins, the right of trading being secured to them.
But after the expulsion of the Dutch, the trade of Brazil came
more and more into the hands of the English."
E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 2-3.
ALSO IN:
R. G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese South America, volume
1, chapter 9 and 15; volume 2, chapter 1-4.
R. Southey, History of Brazil, volume 1-2.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1524.
Conceded to Portugal.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641.
The Republic of St. Paul.
The Paulistas or Mamelukes.
"The celebrated republic of St. Paul, as it is usually
denominated, had its rise about the year 1531, from a very
inconsiderable beginning. A mariner of the name of Ramalho,
having been shipwrecked on this part of the coast, was
received among a small Indian tribe called the Piratininga,
after the name of their chief. Here he was found by De Sousa
some years afterwards, and, contrary to the established policy
of permitting no settlement excepting immediately on the
sea-coast, he allowed this man to remain, on account of his
having intermarried and having a family. The advantages of
this establishment were such, that permission was soon after
given to others to settle here, and as the adventurers
intermarried with the natives, their numbers increased
rapidly. ... A mixed race was formed, possessing a compound of
civilized and uncivilized manners and customs. The Jesuits
soon after established themselves with a number of Indians
they had reclaimed, and exerted a salutary influence in
softening and harmonizing the growing colony. In 1581, the
seat of government was removed from St. Vincent on the coast
to St. Pauls; but its subjection to Portugal was little more
than nominal. ... The mixture produced an improved race, 'the
European spirit of enterprise,' says Southey, 'developed
itself in constitutions adapted to the country.' But it is
much more likely that the free and popular government which
they enjoyed produced the same fruits here as in every other
country. ... They soon quarreled with the Jesuits [1581], on
account of the Indians whom they had reduced to slavery. The
Jesuits declaimed against the practice; but as there were now
many wealthy families among the Paulistas, the greater part of
whose fortunes consisted in their Indians, it was not heard
with patience. The Paulistas first engaged in war against the
enemies of their allies, and afterwards on their own account,
on finding it advantageous. They established a regular trade
with the other provinces whom they supplied with Indian
slaves. They by this time acquired the name of Mamelukes, from
the peculiar military discipline they adopted, bearing some
resemblance to the Mamelukes of Egypt. The revolution in
Portugal, when Philip II. of Spain placed himself on its
throne, cast the Paulistas in a state of independence, as they
were the only settlers in Brazil which did not acknowledge the
new dynasty. From the year 1580 until the middle of the
following century, they may be regarded as a republic, and it
was during this period they displayed that active and
enterprising character for which they were so much celebrated.
... While a Spanish king occupied the throne of Portugal, they
attacked the Spanish settlements on the Paraguay, alleging
that the Spaniards were encroaching on their territory. ...
They attacked the Jesuit missions [1629]. ... As they had
fixed themselves east of the Parana, the Paulistas laid hold
of this as a pretext. They carried away upwards of 2,000 of
their Indians into captivity, the greater part of whom were
sold and distributed as slaves. The Jesuits complained to the
king of Spain and to the pope; the latter fulminated his
excommunication. The Paulistas attacked the Jesuits in their
college, and put their principal to death, expelled the
remainder, and set up a religion of their own; at least no
longer acknowledged the supremacy of the pope. In consequence
of the interruption of the African trade during the Dutch war,
the demand for Indian slaves was very much increased. The
Paulistas redoubled their exertions, and traversed every part
of the Brazils in armed troops. ... The foundation was laid of
enmity to the Portuguese, which continues to this day,
although a complete stop was put to the infamous practice in
the year 1756. ... When the house of Braganza, in 1640,
ascended the throne, the Paulistas, instead of acknowledging
him, conceived the idea of electing a king for themselves.
They actually elected a distinguished citizen of the name of
Bueno, who persisted in refusing to accept, upon which they
were induced to acknowledge Joam IV. [1641]. It was not
until long afterwards that they came under the Portuguese
government."
H. M. Brackenridge, Voyage to South America,
volume 1, chapter 2.
ALSO IN: R. Southey, History of Brazil,
chapter 23 (volume 2).
{312}
BRAZIL: A. D. 1540-1541.
Orellana's voyage down the Amazons.
See AMAZONS RIVER.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1555-1560.
Attempted Huguenot colony on the Bay of Rio Janeiro.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1654-1777.
The Portuguese policy of exclusion and restriction.-Boundary
disputes with Spain.
"The period of peace which followed these victories [over the
Dutch] ... was used by the Portuguese government only to get
up a kind of old Japanese system of isolation, by which it was
intended to keep the colony in perpetual tutelage. In
consequence of this even now, after the lapse of half a
century since it violently separated itself, Brazilians
generally entertain a bitter grudge against the mother
country. All the trade to and from Brazil was engrossed by
Portugal; every functionary, down to the last clerk, was
Portuguese. Any other European of scientific education was
looked at with suspicion; and particularly they sought to
prevent by all means the exploration of the interior, as they
feared not only that the eyes of the natives might be opened
to their mode of administration, but also that such travellers
might side with the Spaniards in their long dispute regarding
the boundaries of the two nations, as the French astronomer,
La Condamine, had done. This question, which arose shortly
after the discovery, and was hushed up only during the short
union of both crowns (from 1581-1640), broke out with renewed
vigor now and then, maugre the Treaty of Tordesilhas in 1494
[see AMERICA: A. D. 1494]. ... By the Treaty of Sao Ildefonso,
in 1777, both parties having long felt how impracticable the
old arrangements were--at least, for their American
colonies--the boundaries were fixed upon the principle of the
'uti possidetis,' at any rate so far as the imperfect
knowledge of the interior allowed; but this effort also proved
to be vain. ... The unsolved question descended as an evil
heritage to their respective heirs, Brazil and the South
American Republics. A few years ago it gave rise to the
terrible war with Paraguay; and it will lead to fresh
conflicts between Brazil and the Argentine Republic."
F. Keller, The Amazon and Madeira Rivers, pages 23-24.
ALSO IN: R. Southey, History of Brazil, volume 3.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1713.
The Portuguese title confirmed.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1759.
Expulsion of the Jesuits.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1757-1773.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1808-1822.
Becomes the asylum of Portuguese royalty.
The founding of the independent Empire.
"While anarchy and ruin ... overspread the greater part of the
beautiful continent of South America, the Empire of Brazil won an
independent existence without bloodshed, and kept it with
credit. The Dutch conquest of Brazil, and its reconquest by
the Portuguese, has been mentioned in a former chapter. The
country long remained under the close and oppressive monopoly
imposed upon it by the Portuguese; but in 1808 [1807] when
Napoleon invaded Portugal, the regent embarked [see PORTUGAL:
A. D. 1807], with the royal insignia, for Brazil, which at
once assumed the dignity of an integral part of the kingdom.
The ports were opened to the commerce of the world; the
printing-press was introduced; learning was encouraged; the
enormous resources of the country were explored; foreign
settlers were invited to establish themselves; embassies were
sent to European powers of the first rank, and diplomatic
agents received. New towns and harbours were planned; new life
was breathed into every department of the state. After a few
years, the state of affairs in Europe compelled King John VI.
to return to Europe, as the only chance of preserving the
integrity of the monarchy. The Cortes of Lisbon invited their
sovereign to revisit his ancient capital, and deputies from
Brazil were summoned to attend the sittings of the National
Assembly. But before the deputies could arrive, the Cortes had
resolved that Brazil should be again reduced to absolute
dependence on Portugal. A resolution more senseless or more
impracticable can hardly be imagined. The territory of Brazil
was as large as all Europe put together; Portugal was a little
kingdom, isolated and without influence among the monarchies
of the Old World; yet it was deliberately decreed that all the
monopolies of the exploded colonial system should be revived,
and that England should be deprived of her free trade to
Brazil. The king appointed his eldest son, Dom Pedro, Regent
of the new kingdom, and soon after took his departure for
Lisbon, with many of the emigrant nobility. Dom Pedro assumed
the government under the perplexing circumstances of an empty
treasury, a heavy public debt, and the provinces almost in
revolt. Bahia disavowed his authority, and the Cortes withheld
their support from him. The regent reduced his expenditure to
the monthly sum allowed to his princess for pin money; he
retired to a country house, and observed the most rigid
economy. By great exertions he reduced the public expenditure
from $50,000,000 to $15,000,000; but the northern and internal
provinces still withheld their taxes; the army became
mutinous, and the ministers of his father, who still remained
in power, were unpopular; the regent in despair demanded his
recall. But the Brazilians were at length disarmed by his
noble conduct; they recognized his activity, his beneficence,
his assiduity in the affairs of government, and the habitual
feelings of affection and respect for the House of Braganza,
which had for a moment been laid asleep by distrust, were
reawakened with renewed strength. It was fortunate that the
quarrels which disturbed Brazil were accommodated before the
arrival of intelligence from Portugal. Hardly had the king
arrived in Lisbon when he found himself obliged to assent to a
constitution which treated his Brazilian subjects as mere
colonists; succeeding mails brought orders more and more
humiliating to the Brazilians.
{313}
The design of declaring Brazil an independent kingdom, grew
more and more in public favour; but the prince was unwilling
to place himself in direct rebellion to the crown of Portugal,
and steadily adhered to his determination to leave America. At
length, it is related, a despatch was delivered to the regent,
which he declined to show to any of his ministers, but which
evidently excited in his mind no ordinary emotions of anger:
he crushed the paper in his hand, and moved away to a window,
where he stood for a few moments in thought; at length he
turned to his council with the words 'Independencia ou
morte':--the exclamation was received with tumultuous cheers,
and was adopted as the watchword of the Revolution. The
Portuguese troops were sent back to Europe. The Cortes of
Lisbon were now anxious to recall their obnoxious decrees; to
admit the deputies from Brazil; to make any concession that
might be demanded. But it was too late: the independence of
Brazil was formally proclaimed in August, 1822, and in
December of the same year, Dom Pedro was crowned Emperor of
Brazil. This is the first, and as yet the only instance of a
modern colony achieving its independence, and separating
itself completely from its metropolis without bloodshed."
Viscount Bury, Exodus of the Western Nations,
volume 2, chapter 11.
ALSO IN:
J. Armitage, History of Brazil, chapter 1-7.
See, also, PORTUGAL: A. D. 1820-1824.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865.
Wars with the Argentines.
Abdication of Dom Pedro I,
The Guerra dos Cabanos.
"In 1825, chiefly through the mediation of England, Brazil was
acknowledged as an independent empire. But the inner
commotions continued, and were not even soothed by a new

Constitution, drawn up in 1823, and sworn to by the Emperor in
1824. New revolts in Pernambuco, and some of the other
Northern provinces, and a war of three years with the
Argentine Republic, which ended in 1828 by Brazil giving up
Banda Oriental, annexed only eleven years before, disturbed
and weakened the land. The foreign soldiers, enlisted for this
war, and retained after its conclusion to keep down the
Opposition, and the extravagant private life of the Emperor,
who recklessly trampled down the honour of respectable
families, provoked dissatisfaction and murmurs, which rose to
the highest pitch when he insisted upon carrying on a most
unpopular war in Portugal to defend the rights of his
daughter, Dona Maria da Gloria (in whose favour he had
abdicated the Portuguese Crown), against his brother. Don
Miguel [see PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889]. In April, 1831, Dom
Pedro I., so enthusiastically raised to the Brazilian throne
only nine years before, was forced to abdicate it, deserted
and betrayed by everyone, in behalf of his younger son, Pedro.
The next period was the most disturbed one that the young
Empire had yet witnessed. Slave revolts at Bahia, a civil war
in the South, which almost cost it the province of Rio Grande
do Sul, and the bloody rebellion known as the Guerra dos
Cabanos, in Pará and Amazon, from 1835 to 1837, followed each
other quickly. In this last revolt, the Brazilians had stirred
up the Indians and mestizoes against the abhorred Portuguese,
without considering that they should not be able to quench the
fire, they had themselves kindled. In a short time, the fury
of the whole colored population turned against all whites,
Brazilians and Portuguese alike, without any distinction.
More than 10,000 persons are said to have perished in this
Guerra dos Cabanos; and, to the present day, those terrible
times and the barbarous cruelties committed by the Indians,
half-castes, and mulattoes, continue to be talked of with awe
in the two provinces. A revolution in Minas, got up by the
personal ambitions of a few political leaders, rather than
emanating from the spirit of the people, and the war against
Rosas, the Dictator of the Argentine Republic, passed over
Brazil without leaving deep traces, at least when compared
with the last war against Paraguay; which, besides the
stimulus of the old differences about boundaries, was
occasioned by the endless vexations and restrictions with
which the Dictator Lopez strove to ruin the Brazilian trade on
the Paraguay, and to prejudice the province of Mato Grosso."
F. Keller, The Amazon and Madeira Rivers, pages 25-26.
ALSO IN: J. Armitage, History of Brazil, 1808-1831.
See, also, ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1865-1870.
The war with Paraguay,
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1871-1888.
Emancipation of Slaves.
The Brazilian act of emancipation, known as the Law of Rio
Branco (taking that name from the Minister who carried it
through) was passed on the 28th of September, 1871, "and from
that date it was enacted 'that children henceforth born of
slave women shall be considered of free condition.' ... Such
children are not to be actually free, but are 'bound to serve
the owners of their mothers for a term of 21 years, under the
name of 'apprentices.' These must work, under severe
penalties, for their hereditary masters; but if the latter
inflict on them excessive bodily punishment, they are allowed
to bring suit in a criminal court, which may declare their
freedom. A provision was also made for the emancipation of
government slaves; and there was a clause which insured a
certain sum, to be annually set aside from fines, which was to
aid each province in emancipating by purchase a certain number
of slaves. ... The passage of this law did not prove merely
prospective in its effects. In a very short time the sums
placed aside for emancipating slaves by purchase resulted in
the freedom of many bondmen. And more than this, there seemed
to be a generous private rivalry in the good work, from
motives of benevolence and from religious influence. Many
persons in various parts of Brazil liberated their slaves
without compensation. ... I am happy to say that the number
liberated, either by the provisions of the State or by private
individuals, is always in an increasing ratio. When the writer
first went to Brazil [1852] ... it was estimated that there
were 3,000,000 in slavery. ... There were at the beginning of
1875, when the law of emancipation had been but a little more
than three years in operation, 1,476,567 slaves."
J. C. Fletcher and D. P. Kidder, Brazil and the
Brazilians, chapter 28.
"On the 25th of March, 1884, slavery was abolished in the
province of Ceará. The Rio News says, 'The movement began only
15 months ago, the first municipality liberating its slaves on
the 1st of January, 1883. The new tax law of last November
greatly accelerated this progress, because it made
slave-holding impossible, the value of the slave being less
than the tax.'" On the 28th of September, 1885, the
impatience of the Brazilians to rid themselves of slavery
expressed itself in a new Emancipation Act, known as the
Saraiva law. It provided for facilitating and hastening the
extension of freedom, by increasing the public fund
appropriated to it, by defining the valuation of slaves, and
by other effective provisions, so that "within ten years [from
its date] it is supposed that slavery will have ceased to
exist in Brazil."
H. C. Dent, A Year in Brazil, pages 281-296.
{314}
"On March 30, 1887, the official return gave the number of
slaves in Brazil as 723,419, of the legal value of
$485,225,212. On May 13, 1888, the Crown Princess, as regent,
gave the royal assent to a short measure of two clauses, the
first declaring that slavery was abolished in Brazil from the
day of the promulgation of the law, and the second repealing
all former Acts on the subject. Both Chambers refused to
consider the claim for compensation made by the slave owners."
Statesman's Year-Book, 1890, page 391.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1889-1891.
Revolution.
Overthrow of the Empire.
Establishment of the Republic of the United States of Brazil.
Religious freedom declared
"The sudden collapse of the Imperial Government in November
[1889], resulting in the downfall of Dom Pedro and his
banishment, caused universal surprise. For some time the
Government had been credited by the Republican journals with
the wish and intention to disperse the army throughout the
provinces and along the frontier, so that, with the assistance
of the newly-organised National Guard, the succession of the
Princess Imperial to the throne might be secured in the event
of the death or incapacity through old age of the Emperor Dom
Pedro. An infantry battalion, ordered to embark for a distant
province, mutinied and refused to go. The War Department
resolved to compel them by force to depart." The result was a
general mutiny (November 15, 1889), which soon became a
revolution. "The organiser of the mutiny was Colonel Benjamin
Constant Botelho de Magalhaes, an officer of exceptional
ability and Professor in the Military Academy. The movement
seemed directed at first only against the obnoxious Ouro Preto
Ministry; but the enthusiasm of the Republicans, under the
leadership of a popular agitator, Jose de Patrocinio, was so
very pronounced, that at a meeting held in the city hall, in
the afternoon of November 15, a resolution proclaiming the
Republic was passed by acclamation. About the same hour, a
self-constituted committee, consisting of General Deodoro [da
Fonseca], Benjamin Constant, and Quintino Bocayuva, met and
organised a Provisional Government," with Marshal Deodoro da
Fonseca for its Chief, Colonel Botelho de Magalhaes for
Minister of War. "A formal decree was issued declaring a
federal Republic, the several provinces of the late Empire
constituting the States and each State arranging its own
constitution and electing its deliberative bodies and local
governments. On the morning of the 16th the deposed Emperor
received intimation that he and his family must leave the
country within twenty-four hours:--'Between 2 and 3 o'clock on
the morning of the 17th an officer appeared at the palace and
informed the Emperor that he must at once embark, with all the
members of his family. The wretched old man protested that he
was not a fugitive, and that he preferred to embark by day;
but after listening to the officer's explanation that a
conflict might occur and blood might be shed, he finally
yielded, protesting that in such a crisis his old grey head
was the only one that was cool. And so at the dead hour of
night, with no one to say a farewell and bid him God-speed,
the aged Emperor, with his devoted wife and children, went
down to the Caes Pharonx, where a launch was waiting to convey
them out to the small gunboat Parnahyba. About 10 o'clock the
gunboat steamed out of the harbour and went down to Ilha
Grande to wait for the merchant steamer Alagoas, which had
been chartered to convey the exiles to Europe'. ... It was
said that the Imperial Ministry, principally through the
instrumentality of Ouro Preto, had arranged with Dom Pedro to
abdicate at the end of January, 1890, in favour of his
daughter, the Countess d'Eu. But the Countess, with her
husband, was extremely unpopular with the army and navy, and
from these the feeling of disloyalty spread rapidly among the
people. By decree of the Provisional Government, the provinces
of Brazil, united by the tie of federation, were to be styled
the 'United States of Brazil,' and general elections were to
take place in August, 1890, to confirm the establishment of
the Republic. A counter-revolution broke out in Rio on December
18. A number of soldiers, sailors, and civilians took part in
it, and troops had to be ordered out to disperse them. It was
not until the 20th that the disturbance was finally quelled."
Annual Register, 1889, part 1, pages 444-448.
"The revolution was the work of leaders who were not only
conscious of their power, but also confident that the nation
would inevitably condone their temporary acts of usurpation.
There were no signs of weakness, vacillation or uncertainty in
their action. ... A coalition of the army officers and the
constitution-makers and political dreamers of the League would
have been impracticable if the leaders had not known that the 20
provinces of the Empire were profoundly disaffected and would
readily acquiesce in a radical change of government. ... The
Emperor of Brazil has enjoyed the reputation of being one of
the most enlightened and progressive sovereigns of his time.
... He was a ruler with many fascinating and estimable traits,
who endeared himself to his people. This and much more may be
said in praise of the deposed and banished Emperor; but when
the record of his public services and of his private virtues
is complete, the fact remains that he stood for a system of
centralization that practically deprived the great series of
federated provinces of their autonomy and his subjects of the
privileges of self-government. Dom Pedro II. was not a
constitutional reformer. The charter which he had received
from his father was not modified in any essential respect
during his long reign."
New York Tribune Extra, volume 1, number 12 (1889).
"A new Constitution ... was ratified by the first National
Congress, convened on November 15, 1890. By this instrument the
Brazilian nation constituted itself into a federal republic,
under the name of the United States of Brazil. Each of the old
provinces was declared a self-governing state, to be
administered under a republican form of government, with power
to impose taxes, and subject to no interference from the
Central Government, except for purposes of national defense or
the preservation of internal order or for the execution of
Federal laws.
{315}
Legislation relating to customs, paper currency, and postal
communications is reserved to the Federal Government. The
right of suffrage is secured to all male citizens over 21
years old, with the exception of beggars, persons ignorant of
the alphabet, soldiers in actual service, and persons under
monastic vows, registration being the only prerequisite. The
executive authority is vested in the President ... elected by
the people directly for the term of six years, and .... not
eligible for the succeeding term. ... Senators are elected by
the Legislatures of the States for nine years, three from each
State, one retiring and his successor being chosen every three
years. ... The Chamber of Deputies has the initiative in all
laws relating to taxation. Deputies are elected for three
years by direct popular vote in the proportion of one to every
70,000 inhabitants. ... It is declared that no sect or church
shall receive aid from the National or State governments." In
1891, differences arose between the President and Congress, at
first over financial measures passed by the Chambers and
vetoed by the President and schemes recommended by the
President that were voted down by Congress. In November the
President published a decree dissolving Congress, closed the
Chambers by force, proclaimed himself Dictator on the
invitation of officers of the army, and convoked a new
Congress, to be charged with the revision of the constitution.
The State of Rio Grande do Sul led off in a revolt against
this usurpation, and on the 23d of November, after some shots
had been fired into the city of Rio de Janeiro by a naval
squadron acting against him, President Fonseca resigned.
"Floriano Peixoto was immediately installed by the
revolutionary committee as President in his stead ... and the
country soon settled down under the new government."--
Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia 1891, pages 91-96.
"When Deodoro, after struggling for twelve months with the
factions in Congress, closed the doors of São Christovão
Palace and proclaimed a dictatorship, he had recourse to a
familiar expedient of Latin-American civilization. The speedy
collapse of his administration, when it was wholly dependent
upon military force, was a good augury for the future of
Brazil. ... In the early days of the Republic, the Provisional
Ministry were unable to agree upon the radical policy of
disestablishing the Church. ... Fortunately for Brazil there
was no compromise of the disestablishment question. ... Under
the Constitution no religious denomination was permitted to
hold relations of dependence upon, or alliance with, the
federal or State governments. ... Every church was made free
in the free State. Civil marriage was recognized as essential.
... Perhaps the most hopeful sign for the cause of progress
and religion is the adoption of educational suffrage."
I. N. Ford, Tropical America, chapter 4.
See CONSTITUTION OF BRAZIL.
----------BRAZIL: End----------
BREAD AND CHEESE WAR.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.
BRECKINRIDGE, John C.
Defeat in Presidential election.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
BREDA: A. D. 1575.
Spanish-Dutch Congress.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.
BREDA: A. D. 1590.
Capture by Prince Maurice of Nassau-Orange.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.
BREDA: A. D. 1624-1625.
Siege and capture by the Spaniards.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.
BREDA: A. D. 1637.
Taken by the Prince of Orange.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.
BREDA: A. D. 1793.
Taken and lost by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).
----------BREDA: End----------
BREDA, Declaration from.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660.
BREDA, Treaty of (1666).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1665-1666.
BREED'S HILL (Bunker Hill), Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JUNE).
BREHON LAWS.
"The portion of the Irish tribe system which has attracted
most attention is the mode in which the judicial authority was
withdrawn from the chief and appropriated by the hereditary
caste of the Brehons, and also the supposed anomalous
principles which they applied to the decision of the cases
which came before them. The earlier English writers found no
terms too strong to express their abhorrence and contempt of
these native judges, and their contempt for the principles
upon which they proceeded. On the other hand, Irish writers
attributed to these professional arbitrators advanced
principles of equity wholly foreign to an early community. ...
The translation of the existing vast mass of Brehon law books,
and the translation [publication?] of the most important of
them by the order of the government, have disposed of the
arguments and assertions on both sides. It is now admitted,
that the system and principles of the Brehon jurisprudence
present no characteristics of any special character, although
in them primitive ideas of law were elaborated in a manner not
found elsewhere; ... the laws which existed among the native
Irish were in substance those which are found to have
prevailed among other Aryan tribes in a similar stage of
social progress; as the social development of the nation was
prematurely arrested, so also were the legal ideas of the same
stage of existence retained after they had disappeared in all
other nations of Europe. This legal survival continued for
centuries the property of an hereditary caste, who had
acquired the knowledge of writing, and some tincture of
scholastic philosophy and civil law. ... The learning of the
Brehons consisted (1) in an acquaintance with the minute
ceremonies, intelligible now only to an archæologist, and not
always to him, by which the action could be instituted, and
without which no Brehon could assume the role of arbitrator;
and (2) in a knowledge of the traditions, customs and
precedents of the tribe, in accordance with which the dispute
should be decided."
A. G. Richey, Short History of the Irish People, chapter 3.
ALSO IN: Sir H. Maine, Early History of Institutions,
lecture 2.
BREISACH: A. D. 1638.
Siege and capture by Duke Bernhard.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
BREISACH: A. D. 1648.
Cession to France.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
BREITENFELD,
Battle of (or first battle of Leipsic).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.
The second battle of (1642).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
{316}
BREMEN: 13th-15th Centuries.
In the Hanseatic League.
See HANSA TOWNS.
BREMEN: A. D. 1525
Formal establishment of the Reformed Religion.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.
BREMEN: A. D. 1648.
Cession of the Bishoprick to Sweden.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
BREMEN: A. D. 1720.
The Duchy ceded to the Elector of Hanover.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.
BREMEN: A. D. 1801-1803.
One of six free cities which survive the Peace of Luneville.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.
BREMEN: A. D. 1810.
Annexed to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).
BREMEN: A. D. 1810-1815.
Loss and recovery of autonomy as a "free city."
See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY.
BREMEN: A. D. 1815.
Once more a Free City and a member of the Germanic
Confederation.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
BREMEN: A. D. 1888.
Surrender of free privileges.
Absorption in the Zollverein and Empire.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1888.
----------BREMEN: End----------
BREMI: A. D. 1635-1638.
Taken by the French.
Recovered by the Spaniards.
See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.
BRÊMULE, Battle of (1119).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.
BRENHIN, The Cymric title.
See ROME: B. C. 390-347.
BRENNI, The.
See RHÆTIANS.
BRENTFORD, Battle of.
Fought and won by Edmund Ironsides in his contest with Cnut,
or Canute, for the English throne A. D. 1016.
BRESCIA: A. D. 1512.
Capture and pillage by the French.
See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.
BRESCIA: A. D. 1849.
Bombardment, capture and brutal treatment by the Austrian
Haynau.
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
----------BRESCIA: End----------
BRESLAU: A. D. 1741-1760.
In the wars of Frederick the Great.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (MAY-JUNE); 1742 (JANUARY-MAY);
1742 (JUNE); GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER), and 1760.
BREST: A. D. 1694.
Repulse of the English fleet.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1694.
BRETAGNE.
See BRITTANY.
BRETHREN OF THE COMMON LOT OR COMMON LIFE.
"The Societies of the Beguines, Beghards, and Lollards [see
BEGUINES], which from the first laboured under various defects
and imperfections, had in course of time degenerated, and by
their own fault, either fallen to pieces of themselves, or
been suppressed. The two things, however, still existed, viz.,
the propensity to religious association, ... and, likewise,
the outward condition, which required and rendered practicable
the efforts of benevolence and charity, strengthened by
cooperation. The last was particularly the case in the
Netherlands, and most in the northern provinces. ... Here,
then, the Institute of the Common Lot takes its rise. ... The
first author of this new series of evolutions was Gerhard
Groot (Geert Groete or de Groot, Gerhardus Magnus), a man of
glowing piety and great zeal in doing good, a powerful popular
orator and an affectionate friend of youth [1340-1384]. ...
His affection for Holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers
kindled in Gerhard's bosom the liveliest zeal for collecting
the records of Christian antiquity. ... Hence, he had long
before employed young men, under his oversight, as copyists,
thereby accomplishing the threefold end of multiplying these
good theological works, giving profitable employment to the
youths, and obtaining an opportunity of influencing their
minds. This he continued more and more to do. The circle of
his youthful friends, scholars, and transcribers, became from
day to day larger, and grew at length into a regular society.
Having thus in part owed its origin to the copying of the
Scriptures and devotional books, the Society from the outset,
and through its whole continuance, made the Holy Scripture and
its propagation, the copying, collecting, preserving, and
utilizing of good theological and ascetical books, one of its
main objects. ... The members were called 'Brethren of the
Common Lot,' [or of the Common Life] or 'Brethren of Good
Will,' 'Fratres Collationarii,' 'Jeronymians,' and
'Gregorians.' ... Imitating the Church at Jerusalem, and
prompted by brotherly affection, they mutually shared with
each other their earnings and property, or consecrated also
their fortune, if they possessed any, to the service of the
community. From this source, and from donations and legacies
made to them, arose the 'Brother-houses,' in each of which a
certain number of members lived together, subjected, it is
true, in dress, diet, and general way of life, to an appointed
rule, but yet not conventually sequestered from the world,
with which they maintained constant intercourse, and in such a
way as, in opposition to Monachism [monasticism], to preserve
the principle of individual liberty."
C. Ullmann, Reformers before the Reformation,
volume 2, part 2, chapter l.
"Through the wonderful activity of that fraternity of
teachers, begun about 1360, called the Brethren of the Common
Life, the Netherlands had the first system of common schools
in Europe. These schools flourished in every large town and
almost in every village, so that popular education was the
rule."
W. E. Griffis, The Influence of the Netherlands, page 3.
ALSO IN: S. Kettlewell, Thomas à Kempis and the Brothers
of Common Life, chapter 5-6 (volume 1).
BRETHREN OF THE FREE SPIRIT.
See BEGUINES.
BRETIGNY, Treaty of.
The treaty, called at the time "the great peace," concluded
May 8, 1360, between Edward III. of England and John II. of
France, in which Edward renounced his pretensions to the
French crown, released for a ransom King John, then a prisoner
in his hands, and received the full sovereignty of Guienne,
Poitou and Ponthieu in France, besides retaining Calais and
Guisnes.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.
BRETWALDA.
A title given to some of the early English kings. "Opinions
differ as to the meaning of the word Bretwalda. Palgrave and
Lappenberg take it as equivalent to 'ruler of Britain': Kemble
construes it 'broad-ruling,' and sees in it a dignity without
duty, hardly more than an accidental predominance.' (Saxons in
England, ii., 18.) The list of those who obtained this
'ducatus' includes Ethelbert of Kent, who broke the power of
the petty kings as far as the Humber, Redbald of East Anglia,
who obtained it by some means even in the lifetime of
Ethelbert, and the three great Northumbrian kings, Edwin,
Oswold and Oswy, whose supremacy however did not extend to
Kent."
O. Elton, Origins of English History, page 392, note.
ALSO IN:
E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of
England, volume 1, appendix B.
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527,
and ENGLAND: 7TH CENTURY.
{317}
BREWSTER, William, and the Plymouth Pilgrims.
See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617,
and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620, and after.
BREYZAD.
The people and the language of Brittany, or Bretagne.
See BRITTANY: A. D. 818-912.
BRIAN BORU,
The reign in Ireland of.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1014.
BRIDGE, Battle of the.
A serious reverse suffered by the Arab followers of Mahomet in
their early movements against the Persians, A. D. 634. A force
of 9,000 or 10,000 having crossed the Euphrates by a bridge of
boats were beaten back, their bridge destroyed and half of
them slain or drowned.
G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter
26.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.
BRIDGEWATER, OR LUNDY'S LANE, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
BRIDGEWATER, Storming of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
BRIENNE, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
BRIGANTES, The.
One of the strongest and fiercest of the tribes of ancient
Britain, believed by some historians to have been the original
pre-Celtic inhabitants of the island. At the time of the Roman
conquest they held the whole interior northward from the
Humber and Mersey to the Forth and Clyde. They were subdued by
Agricola.
E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 1, chapter 1.
See, also, BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES,
and A. D. 43-53;
also, IRELAND, TRIBES of EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.
BRIGANTINE.--BERGANTIN.
See CARAVELS.
BRIHUEGA, Battle of (A. D. 1710).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.
BRILL, The capture of.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572.
BRISBANE.
See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840, and 1859.
BRISSOT DE WARVILLE AND THE GIRONDISTS.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER), to 1793
(SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
BRISSOTINS.
The party of the Girondists, in the French Revolution, was
sometimes so called, after Brissot de Warville, one of its
leaders.
BRISTOE STATION, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).
BRISTOL: 12th Century.
Its slave trade and other commerce.
"Within its comparatively narrow limits Bristol must have been
in general character and aspect not unlike what it is
to-day--a busy, bustling, closely-packed city, full of the
eager, active, surging life of commercial enterprise. Ostmen
from Waterford and Dublin, Northmen from the Western Isles and
the more distant Orkneys, and even from Norway itself, had
long ago learnt to avoid the shock of the 'Higra,' the mighty
current which still kept its heathen name derived from the
sea-god of their forefathers, and make it serve to float them
into the safe and commodious harbour of Bristol, where a
thousand ships could ride at anchor. As the great trading
centre of the west Bristol ranked as the third city in the
kingdom, surpassed in importance only by Winchester and
London. The most lucrative branch of its trade, however,
reflects no credit on its burghers. All the eloquence of S.
Wulfstan and all the sternness of the Conqueror had barely
availed to check for a while their practice of kidnapping men
for the Irish slave-market; and that the traffic was in full
career in the latter years of Henry I. we learn from the
experiences of the canons of Laon."
K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, volume 1, chapter
1.
BRISTOL: A. D. 1497.
Cabot's voyage of discovery.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1497.
BRISTOL: A. D. 1645.
The storming of the city by Fairfax.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
BRISTOL: A. D. 1685.
The commerce and wealth of the city.
"Next to the capital, but next at an immense distance, stood
Bristol, then the first English seaport. ... Pepys, who
visited Bristol eight years after the Restoration, was struck
by the splendour of the city. But his standard was not high;
for he noted down as a wonder the circumstance that, in
Bristol, a man might look round him and see nothing but
houses. ... A few churches of eminent beauty rose out of a
labyrinth of narrow lanes built upon vaults of no great
solidity. If a coach or cart entered those alleys, there was
danger that it would be wedged between the houses, and danger
also that it would break in the cellars. Goods were therefore
conveyed about the town almost exclusively in trucks drawn by
dogs; and the richest inhabitants exhibited their wealth, not
by riding in carriages, but by walking the streets with trains
of servants in rich liveries and by keeping tables loaded with
good cheer. The hospitality of the city was widely renowned,
and especially the collations with which the sugar refiners
regaled their visitors. ... This luxury was supported by a
thriving trade with the North American Plantations and with
the West Indies. The passion for colonial traffic was so
strong that there was scarcely a small shopkeeper in Bristol
who had not a venture on board of some ship bound for Virginia
or the Antilles. Some of these venturers indeed were not of
the most honourable kind. There was, in the Transatlantic
possessions of the crown, a great demand for labour; and this
demand was partly supplied by a system of crimping and
kidnapping at the principal English seaports. Nowhere was this
system in such active and extensive operation as at Bristol.
... The number of houses appears, from the returns of the
hearth-money, to have been, in the year 1685, just 5,300. ...
The population of Bristol must therefore have been about
29,000."
Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 3 (volume 1).
BRISTOL: A. D. 1831.
The Reform Bill Riots.
The popular excitement produced in England in 1831 by the
action of the House of Lords in rejecting the Reform Bill, led
to riots in several places, but most seriously at Bristol.
"The Bristol mobs have always been noted for their brutality;
and the outbreak now was such as to amaze and confound the the
whole kingdom. ...
{318}
The lower parts of the city were the harbourage of probably a
worse seaport populace than any other place in England, while
the police was ineffective and demoralised. There was no city
in which a greater amount of savagery lay beneath a society
proud, exclusive, and mutually repellent, rather than
enlightened and accustomed to social co-operation. These are
circumstances which go far to account for the Bristol riots
being so fearfully bad as they were. Of this city, Sir Charles
Wetherell--then at the height of his unpopularity as a
vigorous opponent of the Reform Bill--was recorder; and there
he had to go, in the last days of October, in his judicial
capacity. ... The symptoms of discontent were such as to
induce the mayor, Mr. Pinney, to apply to the home-office for
military aid. Lord Melbourne sent down some troops of horse,
which were quartered within reach, in the neighbourhood of the
city. ... Sir Charles Wetherell could not be induced to
relinquish his public entry, though warned of the danger by
the magistrates themselves. ... On Saturday, October 29, Sir
Charles Wetherell entered Bristol in pomp; and before he
reached the Mansion House at noon, he must have been pretty
well convinced, by the hootings and throwing of stones, that
he had better have foregone the procession. For some hours the
special constables and the noisy mob in front of the Mansion
House exchanged discourtesies of an emphatic character, but
there was no actual violence till night. At night, the Mansion
House was attacked, and the Riot Act was read; but the
military were not brought down, as they ought to have been, to
clear the streets. The mayor had 'religious scruples,' and was
'humane'; and his indecision was not overborne by any aid from
his brother-magistrates. When the military were brought in, it
was after violence had been committed, and when the passions
of the mob were much excited. Sir Charles Wetherell escaped
from the city that night. During the dark hours, sounds were
heard provocative of further riot; shouts in the streets, and
the hammering of workmen who were boarding up the lower
windows of the Mansion House and the neighbouring dwellings.
On the Sunday morning, the rioters broke into the Mansion
House without opposition; and from the time they got into the
cellars, all went wrong. Hungry wretches and boys broke the
necks of the bottles, and Queen Square was strewed with the
bodies of the dead-drunk. The soldiers were left without
orders, and their officers without that sanction of the
magistracy in the absence of which they could not act, but
only parade; and in this parading, some of the soldiers
naturally lost their tempers, and spoke and made gestures on
their own account, which did not tend to the soothing of the
mob. This mob never consisted of more than five or six
hundred. ... The mob declared openly what they were going to
do; and they went to work unchecked--armed with staves and
bludgeons from the quays, and with iron palisades from the
Mansion House--to break open and burn the bridewell, the jail,
the bishop's palace, the custom-house, and Queen Square. They
gave half an hour's notice to the inhabitants of each house in
the square, which they then set fire to in regular succession,
till two sides, each measuring 550 feet, lay in smoking ruins.
The bodies of the drunken were seen roasting in the fire. The
greater number of the rioters were believed to be under twenty
years of age, and some were mere children; some Sunday
scholars, hitherto well conducted, and it may be questioned
whether one in ten knew anything of the Reform Bill, or the
offences of Sir Charles Wetherell. On the Monday morning,
after all actual riot seemed to be over, the soldiery at last
made two slaughterous charges. More horse arrived, and a
considerable body of foot soldiers; and the constabulary
became active; and from that time the city was in a more
orderly state than the residents were accustomed to see it.
... The magistrates were brought to trial, and so was Colonel
Brereton, who was understood to be in command of the whole of
the military. The result of that court-martial caused more
emotion throughout the kingdom than all the slaughtering and
burning, and the subsequent executions which marked that
fearful season. It was a year before the trial of the
magistrates was entered upon. The result was the acquittal of
the mayor, and the consequent relinquishment of the
prosecution of his brother-magistrates."
H. Martineau, A History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2).
----------BRISTOL: End----------
BRITAIN, Count and Duke of.
The military commanders of Roman Britain.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337,
also ARTHUR, KING.
BRITAIN, The name.
See BRITANNIA.
BRITAIN: Celtic Tribes.
"It appears that the southeastern part of the island, or the
district now occupied by the county of Kent, was occupied by
the Cantii, a large and influential tribe, which in Cæsar's
time, was divided among four chiefs or kings. To the west, the
Regni held the modern counties of Sussex and Surrey, from the
sea-coast to the Thames. Still farther west, the Belgæ
occupied the country from the southern coast to the Bristol
Channel, including nearly the whole of Hampshire, Wiltshire
and Somersetshire. The whole of the extensive district
extending from the Belgæ to the extreme western point of the
island, then called Antivestæum or Bolerium (now the Land's
End) including Devonshire and Cornwall, was occupied by the
Dumnonii, or Damnonii. On the coast between the Dumnonii and
the Belgæ the smaller tribe of the Durotriges held the modern
county of Dorset. On the other side of the Thames, extending
northwards to the Stour, and including the greater part of
Middlesex as well as Essex, lay the Trinobantes. To the north
of the Stour dwelt the Iceni, extending over the counties of
Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridge and Huntingdon. The Coritavi
possessed the present counties of Northampton, Leicester,
Rutland, Derby, Nottingham and Lincoln; and the south-eastern
part of Yorkshire was held by the Parisi. Between the tribes
last enumerated, in the counties of Buckingham, Bedford and
Hertford, lay the tribe called by Ptolemy the Catyeuchlani,
and by others Catuvellani. Another name, apparently, for this
tribe, or for a division of it, was the Cassii. West of these
were the Atrebates, in Berkshire; and still further west were
the Dobuni, in the counties of Oxford and Gloucester. ... The
interior of the island northward was occupied by the
Brigantes, who held the extensive districts, difficult of
approach on account of their mountains and woods, extending
from the Humber and the Mersey to the present borders of
Scotland. This extensive tribe appears to have included
several smaller ones [the Voluntii, the Sestuntii, the
Jugantes and the Cangi].
{319}
The Brigantes are believed to have been the original
inhabitants of the island, who had been driven northward by
successive invasions. ... Wales, also, was inhabited by a
primitive population. The northern counties ... was the
territory of the Ordovices. The southeastern counties ... were
held by the Demetae. The still more celebrated tribe of the
Silures inhabited the modern counties of Hereford, Radnor,
Breeknoek, Monmouth and Clamorgan. Between these and the
Brigantes lay the Cornabii or Carnabii. The wilder parts of
the island of Britain, to the north of the Brigantes, were
inhabited by a great number of smaller tribes, some of whom
seem to have been raised in the scale of civilization little
above savages. Of these we have the names of no less than
twenty-one. Bordering on the Brigantes were the Otadeni,
inhabiting the coast from the Tyne to the Firth of Forth. ...
Next to them were the Gadeni. ... The Selgovæ inhabited
Annandale, Nithsdale and Eskdale, in Dumfriesshire, with the
East of Galloway. The Novantes inhabited the remainder of
Galloway. The Damnii, a larger tribe, held the country from
the chain of hills separating Galloway from Carrick, northward
to the river Ern. These tribes lay to the south of the Forth
and Clyde. Beyond the narrow boundary formed by these rivers
lay [the Horestii, the Venricones or Vernicomes, the Taixali
or Taexali, the Vacomagi, the Albani, the Cantæ, the Logi, the
Carnabii, the Catini, the Mertæ, the Carnonacæ, the Creones,
the Cerones, and the Epidii]. The ferocious tribe of the
Attacotti inhabited part of Argyleshire, and the greater part
of Dumbartonshire. The wild forest country of the interior,
known as the Caledonia Sylva (or Forest of Celyddon), extended
from the ridge of mountains between Inverness and Perth,
northward to the forest of Balnagowan, including the middle
parts of Inverness and Ross, was held by the Caledonii, which
appears to have been at this time [of the conquests of
Agricola] the most important and powerful of all the tribes
north of the Brigantes."
T. Wright, The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
J. Rhys, Celtic Britain.
J. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, book 1, chapter 2.
BRITAIN: B. C. 55-54.
Cæsar's invasions.
Having extended his conquests in Gaul to the British Channel
and the Strait of Dover (see GAUL: B. C. 58-51), Cæsar crossed
the latter, in August, B. C. 55, and made his first landing in
Britain, with two legions, numbering 8,000 to 10,000 men.
Portus Itius, from which he sailed, was probably either
Wissant or Boulogne, and his landing place on the British
coast is believed to have been near Deal. The Britons disputed
his landing with great obstinacy, but were driven back, and
offered to submit; but when a few days afterwards, Cæsar's
fleet suffered greatly from a storm, they reconsidered their
submission and opened hostilities again. Routed in a second
battle, they once more sued for peace, and gave hostages;
whereupon Cæsar reembarked his troops and returned to the
continent, having remained in Britain not more than three
weeks and penetrated the island a short distance only. The
following summer he crossed to Britain again, determined on
making a thorough conquest of the country. This time he had
five legions at his back, with two thousand horse, and the
expedition was embarked on more than eight hundred ships. He
sailed from and landed at the same points as before. Having
established and garrisoned a fortified camp, he advanced into
the country, encountering and defeating the Britons, first, at
a river, supposed to be the Stour which flows past Canterbury.
A storm which damaged his fleet then interrupted his advance,
compelling him to return to the coast. When the disaster had
been repaired he marched again, and again found the enemy on
the Stour, assembled under the command of Cassivelaunus, whose
kingdom was north of the Thames. He dispersed them, after much
fighting, with great slaughter, and crossed the Thames, at a
point, it is supposed, near the junction of the Wey. Thence he
pushed on until he reached the "oppidum" or stronghold of
Cassivelaunus, which is believed by some to have been on the
site of the modern town of St. Albans,--but the point is It
disputed one. On receiving the submission of Cassivelaunus,
and of other chiefs, or kings, fixing the tribute they should
pay and taking hostages, Cæsar returned to the coast,
reembarked his army and withdrew. His stay in Britain on this
occasion was about sixty days.
Cæsar, Gallic War, book 4, chapter 20-36,
and book 7, chapter 7-33.
ALSO IN:
H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 2.
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 9 and
11-12.
T. Lewin, Invasion of Britain by Cæsar.
F. T. Vine, Cæsar in Kent.
E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 2.
BRITAIN: A. D. 43-53.
Conquests of Claudius.
Nearly a hundred years passed after Cæsar's hasty invasion of
Britain before the Romans reappeared on the island, to enforce
their claim of tribute. It was under the fourth of the
imperial successors of Julius Cæsar, the feeble Claudius, that
the work of Roman conquest in Britain was really begun. Aulus
Plautius, who commanded in Gaul, was sent over with four
legions, A. D. 43, to obtain a footing and to smooth the way
for the Emperor's personal campaign. With him went one,
Vespasian, who began in Britain to win the fame which pushed
him into the imperial seat and to a great place in Roman
history. Plautius and Vespasian made good their occupation of
the country as far as the Thames, and planted their forces
strongly on the northern bank of that river; before they
summoned the Emperor to their aid. Claudius came before the
close of the military season, and his vanity was gratified by
the nominal leading of an advance on the chief oppidum, or
stronghold of the Britons, called Camulodunum, which occupied
the site of the modern city of Colchester. The Trinobantes,
whose capital it was, were beaten and the place surrendered.
Satisfied with this easy victory, the Emperor returned to
Rome, to enjoy the honors of a triumph; while Vespasian, in
command of the second legion, fought his way, foot by foot,
into the southwest of the island, and subjugated the obstinate
tribes of that region. During the next ten years, under the
command of Ostorius Scapula, who succeeded Plautius, and
Avitus Didius Gallus, who succeeded Ostorius, the Roman power
was firmly settled in southern Britain, from the Stour, at the
East, to the Exe and the Severn at the West. The Silures, of
South Wales, who had resisted most stubbornly, under
Caractacus, the fugitive Trinobantine prince, were subdued and
Caractacns made captive. The Iceni (in Suffolk, Norfolk and
Cambridge-shire) were reduced from allies to sullen
dependents. The Brigantes, most powerful of all the tribes,
and who held the greater part of the whole north of modern
England, were still independent, but distracted by internal
dissensions which Roman influence was active in keeping alive.
This, stated briefly, was the extent to which the conquest of
Britain was carried during the reign of Claudius, between A.
D. 43 and 54.
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 51.
ALSO IN:
E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 2, part 2, chapter 13.
H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 4.
See, also, COLCHESTER, ORIGIN OF.
{320}
BRITAIN: A. D. 61.
Campaigns of Suetonius Paulinus.
From A. D. 50 to 61, while Didius Gallus and his successor
Veranius commanded in Britain, nothing was done to extend the
Roman acquisitions. In the latter year, Suetonius Paulinus
came to the command, and a stormy period of war ensued. His
first movement was to attack the Druids in the isle of Mona,
or Anglesey, into which they had retreated from Gaul and
Britain, in successive flights, before the implacable
hostility of Rome. "In this gloomy lair, secure apparently,
though shorn of might and dignity, they still persisted in the
practice of their unholy superstition. ... Here they retained
their assemblies, their schools, and their oracles; here was
the asylum of the fugitives; here was the sacred grove, the
abode of the awful deity, which in the stillest noon of night
or day the priest himself scarce ventured to enter lest he
should rush unwittingly into the presence of its lord." From
Segontium (modern Caernarvon) Suetonius crossed the Menai
Strait on rafts and boats with one of his legions, the
Batavian cavalry swimming their horses. The landing was
fiercely disputed by women and men, priests and worshippers;
but Roman valor bore down all resistance. "From this moment
the Druids disappear from the page of history; they were
exterminated, we may believe, upon their own altars; for
Suetonius took no half measures." This accomplished, the Roman
commander was quickly called upon to meet a terrific outburst
of patriotic rage on the part of the powerful nation of the
Iceni, who occupied the region now forming the counties of
Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridge, and Huntingdon. They had been
allies of the Romans, first; then tributaries, under their own
king, and finally subjects, much oppressed. Their last king,
Prasutagus, had vainly hoped to win favor for his wife and
children, when he died, by bequeathing his kingdom to the
Roman State. But the widowed queen, Boudicea, or Boadicea, and
her daughters, were only exposed with more helplessness to the
insolence and the outrages of a brutal Roman officer. They
appealed to their people and maddened them by the exposure of
indescribable wrongs. The rising which ensued was fierce and
general beyond precedent. "The Roman officials fled, or, if
arrested, were slaughtered; and a vast multitude, armed and
unarmed, rolled southward to overwhelm and extirpate the
intruders. To the Colne, to the Thames, to the sea, the
country lay entirely open." The colony at Camulodunum
(Colchester), was destroyed; Verulamium (St. Albans), and
Londinium (London), were sacked and burned; not less than
70,000 of the Romans in Britain were slaughtered without
mercy. Suetonius made haste to quit Anglesey when the dreadful
news reached him, and pressed, with all speed, along the great
highway of Watling Street--gathering up his forces in hand as
he went--to reach the awful scene of rage and terror. He had
collected but 10,000 men when he confronted, at last, the vast
swarm of the insurgents, on a favorable piece of ground that
he had secured, in the neighborhood of Camulodunum. But, once
more, the valor of undisciplined semi-barbarism wrecked itself
on the firm shields of the Roman cohorts, and 80,000 Britons
are said to have fallen in the merciless fight. The
insurrection was crushed and Roman authority in Britain
reaffirmed. But the grim Suetonius dealt so harshly with the
broken people that even Rome remonstrated, and he was,
presently, recalled, to give place to a more pacific
commander.
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 51.
ALSO IN: H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 5.
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 5.
BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.
Campaigns of Agricola.
For seventeen years after the recall of Suetonius Paulinus (A.
D. 61) there was a suspension of Roman conquest in Britain.
The military power in the island suffered great
demoralization, resulting naturally from the chaos of affairs
at Rome, between Nero and Vespasian. These conditions ceased
soon after the accession of the Flavian Emperor, and he, who
had attained first in Britain the footing from which he
climbed to the throne, interested himself in the spreading of
his sovereignty over the whole of the British island. C. Julius
Agricola was the soldier and statesman--a great man in each
character--whom he selected for the work. Agricola was made
prefect or Governor of Britain, A. D. 78. "Even in his first
summer, when he had been but a few months in the island, and
when none even of his own officers expected active service,
Agricola led his forces into the country of the Ordovices, in
whose mountain passes the war of independence still lingered,
drove the Britains across the Menai Straits and pursued them

into Anglesey, as Suetonius had done before him, by boldly
crossing the boiling current in the face of the enemy. Another
summer saw him advance northward into the territory of the
Brigantes, and complete the organization of the district,
lately reduced, between the Humber and Tyne. Struck perhaps
with the natural defences of the line from the Tyne to the
Solway, where the island seems to have broken, as it were, in
the middle and soldered unevenly together, he drew a chain of
forts from sea to sea. ... In the third year of his command,
Agricola pushed forward along the eastern coast, and, making
good with roads and fortresses every inch of his progress,
reached, as I imagine, the Firth of Forth. ... Here he
repeated the operations of the preceding winter, planting his
camps and stations from hill to hill, and securing a new belt
of territory, ninety miles across, for Roman occupation." The
next two years were spent in strengthening his position and
organizing his conquest. In A. D. 83 and 84 he advanced beyond
the Forth, in two campaigns of hard fighting, the latter of
which was made memorable by the famous battle of the
Grampians, or Graupius, fought with the Caledonian hero
Galgacus. At the close of this campaign he sent his fleet
northward to explore the unknown coast and to awe the remoter
tribes, and it is claimed that the vessels of Agricola
circumnavigated the island of Britain, for the first time, and
saw the Orkneys and Shetlands. The further plans of the
successful prefect were interrupted by his sudden recall.
Vespasian, first, then Titus, had died while he pursued his
victorious course in Caledonia, and the mean Domitian was
envious and afraid of his renown.
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 61.
ALSO IN:
Tacitus, Agricola.
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 5.
{321}
BRITAIN: 2d-3d Centuries.
Introduction of Christianity.
See Christianity: A. D. 100-312.
BRITAIN: A. D. 208-211.
Campaigns of Severus.
A fresh inroad of the wild Caledonians of the north upon Roman
Britain, in the year 208, caused the Emperor Severus to visit
the distant island in person, with his two worthless sons,
Caracalla and Geta. He desired, it is said, to remove those
troublesome youths from Rome and to subject them to the
wholesome discipline of military life. The only result, so far
as they were concerned, was to give Caracalla opportunities
for exciting mutiny among the troops and for making several
attempts against his father's life. But Severus persisted in
his residence in Britain during more than two years, and till
his death, which occurred at Eboracum (York) on the 4th of
February, A. D. 211. During that time he prosecuted the war
against the Caledonians with great vigor, penetrating to the
northern extremity of the island, and losing, it is said;
above 50,000 men, more by the hardships of the climate and the
march than by the attacks of the skulking enemy. The
Caledonians made a pretence of submission, at last, but were
soon in arms again. Severus was then preparing to pursue them
to extermination, when he died.
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 6.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ALSO IN: T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 5.
BRITAIN: A. D. 288-297.
Rebellion of Carausius.
"During the reign of Gallienus [A. D. 260-268] ... the pirate
fleets of the Franks infested the British seas, and it became
needful to have a fleet to protect the coast. The command of
this fleet had been conferred on Carausius, a Menapian by
birth; but he was suspected of conniving at piracy, in order
that he might enrich himself by becoming a sharer in their
booty, when they returned laden with plunder. To save himself,
therefore, from punishment, he usurped the imperial power, A.
D. 288, and reigned over Britain for seven years. A vast
number of his coins struck in Britain have been preserved, so
many that the history of Carausius has been written from his
medals. He was slain at length by his minister Allectus, who
usurped his power. The Franks [as allies of Allectus] had
well-nigh established their power over the south portion of
Britain when it was broken by Constantius, the father of
Constantine the Great, who defeated Allectus in a decisive
battle, in which that usurper was slain. ... Allectus held the
government of Britain for three years. Many of his coins are
found."
H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 10.
ALSO IN: T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 4.
BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.
Constantine's Organization.
Under the scheme of government designed by Diocletian and
amended by Constantine, "Britain formed part of a vast
pro-consulate, extending from Mount Atlas to the Caledonian
deserts, and was governed by the Gallic prefect, through a
'vicar' or deputy at York. The island was divided into five
new provinces. ... Britain was under the orders of the Count
of Britain, assisted by the subordinate officers. The Duke of
Britain commanded in the north. The Count of the Saxon Shore,
governed the 'Maritime Tract' and provided for the defence of
the southeastern coast. The Saxon Shore on the coast of
Britain must not be mistaken for the Saxon Shore on the
opposite coast of France, the headquarters of which were the
harbour of Boulogne. The names of the several provinces into
which Britain was divided are given in the 'Notitia,' viz:--
1. Britannia Prima, which included all the south and west of
England, from the estuary of the Thames to that of the Severn.
2. Britannia Secunda, which included the Principality of
Wales, bounded by the Severn on the east and the Irish Channel
on the west.
3. Flavia Cæsariensis,--all the middle portion of Britain,
from the Thames to the Humber and the· estuary of the Dee.
4. Maxima Cæsariensis,--the Brigantian territory, lying
between the estuaries of the Humber and Dee, and the Barrier
of the Lower Isthmus.
5. Valentia,--the most northern portion, lying between the
barrier of Hadrian and that of Antoninus."
H. M. Scarth. Roman Britain, chapter 10.
Britain: A. D. 367-370.
Deliverance By Theodosius.
The distracted condition of affairs in the Roman Empire that
soon followed the death of Constantine, which was relieved by
Julian for a brief term, and which became worse at his death,
proved especially ruinous to Roman Britain. The savage tribes
of Caledonia--the Picts, now beginning to be associated with
the Scots from Ireland--became bolder from year to year in
their incursions, until they marched across the whole extent
of Britain. "Their path was marked by cruelties so atrocious,
that it was believed at the time and recorded by St. Jerome
that they lived on human flesh. London, even, was threatened
by them, and the whole island, which, like all the other
provinces of the Empire, had lost every spark of military
virtue, was incapable of opposing any resistance to them.
Theodosius, a Spanish officer, and father of the great man of
the same name who was afterwards associated in the Empire, was
charged by Valentinian with the defence of Britain. He forced
the Scots to fall back (A. D. 367-370), but without having
been able to bring them to an engagement."
J. C. L. de Sismondi, Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 5.
"The splendour of the cities and the security of the
fortifications were diligently restored by the paternal care
of Theodosius, who with a strong hand confined the trembling
Caledonians to the northern angle of the island, and
perpetuated, by the name and settlement of the new province of
Valentia, the glories of the reign of Valentinian."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 25.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
BRITAIN: A. D. 383-388.
Revolt of Maximus.
In 383, four years after Theodosius the Great had been
associated in the Roman sovereignty by the young Emperor
Gratian, and placed on the throne of the East, the generous
Gratian lost his own throne, and his life, through a revolt
that was organized in Britain. "One Maximus, a Spaniard by
birth, occupying a high official position in that province,
forced on step by step into insurrection, by a soldiery and a
people of whom he appears to have been the idol, raised the
standard of revolt in the island, and passed over into Gaul,
attended by a large multitude,--130,000 men and 70,000 women,
says Zosimus, the Byzantine historian. This colony, settling
in the Armorican peninsula, gave it the name of Brittany,
which it has since retained. The rebel forces were soon
victorious over the two Emperors who had agreed to share the
Roman throne [Gratian and his boy-brother Valentinian who
divided the sovereignty of the West between them, while
Theodosius ruled the East]. Gratian they slew at Lyons;
Valentinian they speedily expelled from Italy. ... Theodosius
adopted the cause of his brother Emperor" and overthrew
Maximus (see ROME: A. D. 379-395).
J. G. Sheppard, Fall of Rome, lecture 5.
ALSO IN:
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 27.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
{322}
BRITAIN: A. D. 407.
The Usurpation Of Constantine.
"The Roman soldiers in Britain, seeing that the Empire was
falling to pieces under the feeble sway of Honorius, and
fearing lest they, too, should soon he ousted from their
dominion in the island (part of which was already known as the
Saxon Shore) clothed three usurpers successively with the
imperial purple [A. D. 407], falling, as far as social
position was concerned, lower and lower in their choice each
time. The last and least ephemeral of these rulers was a
private soldier named Constantine, and chosen for no other
reason but his name, which was accounted lucky, as having been
already borne by a general who had been carried by a British
army to supreme dominion."
T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 1, chapter 5.
The usurper Constantine soon led his legions across the
channel into Gaul, then ravaged by the Vandals, Sueves, Alans
and Burgundians who passed the Rhine in 406. He was welcomed
with joy by the unhappy people who found themselves abandoned
to the barbarians. Some successes which the new Constantine
had, in prudent encounters with detached parties of the German
invaders, were greatly magnified, and gave prestige to his
cause. He was still more successful, for a time, in buying the
precarious friendship of some tribes of the enemy, and made,
on the whole, a considerable show of dominion in Gaul during
two or three years. The seat of his government was established
at Arles, to which city the offices and court of the Roman
Prefect of Gaul had retreated from Trèves in 402. With the
help of a considerable army of barbarian auxiliaries (a
curious mixture of Scots, Moors and Marcomanni) he extended
his sovereignty over Spain. He even extorted from the
pusillanimous court at Ravenna a recognition of his usurped
royalty, and promised assistance to Honorius against the
Goths. But the tide of fortune presently turned. The
lieutenant of Constantine in Spain, Count Gerontius, became
for some reason disaffected and crowned a new usurper, named
Maximus. In support of the latter he attacked Constantine and
shut him up in Arles. At the same time, the Emperor Honorius,
at Ravenna, having made peace with the Goths, sent his general
Constantius against the Gallo-British usurper. Constantius,
approaching Arles, found it already besieged by Gerontius. The
latter was abandoned by his troops, and fled, to be slain soon
afterwards. Arles capitulated to the representative of the
great name which Honorius still bore, as titular Imperator of
Rome. Constantine was sent to Ravenna, and put to death on the
way (A. D. 411).
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 31.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ALSO IN:
P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 3, chapter 10.
BRITAIN: A. D. 410.
Abandoned By The Romans.
"Up to the moment ... when the Imperial troops quitted
Britain, we see them able easily to repel the attacks of its
barbarous assailants. When a renewal of their inroads left
Britain weak and exhausted at the accession of the Emperor
Honorius, the Roman general Stilicho renewed the triumphs
which Theodosius had won. The Pict was driven back afresh, the
Saxon boats chased by his galleys as far as the Orkneys, and
the Saxon Shore probably strengthened with fresh fortresses.
But the campaign of Stilicho was the last triumph of the
Empire in its western waters. The struggle Rome had waged so
long drew in fact to its end; at the opening of the fifth
century her resistance suddenly broke down; and the savage
mass of barbarism with which she had battled broke in upon the
Empire. ... The strength of the Empire, broken everywhere by
military revolts, was nowhere more broken than in Britain,
where the two legions which remained quartered at Richborough
and York set up more than once their chiefs as Emperors and
followed them across the channel in a march upon Rome. The
last of these pretenders, Constantine, crossed over to Gaul in
407 with the bulk of the soldiers quartered in Britain, and
the province seems to have been left to its own defence; for
it was no longer the legionaries, but 'the people of Britain'
who, 'taking up arms,' repulsed a new onset of the barbarians.
... They appealed to Honorius to accept their obedience, and
replace the troops. But the legions of the Empire were needed
to guard Rome itself: and in 410 a letter of the Emperor bade
Britain provide for its own government and its own defence.
Few statements are more false than those which picture the
British provincials as cowards, or their struggle against the
barbarian as a weak and unworthy one. Nowhere, in fact,
through the whole circuit of the Roman world, was so long and
so desperate a resistance offered to the assailants of the
Empire. ... For some thirty years after the withdrawal of the
legions the free province maintained an equal struggle against
her foes. Of these she probably counted the Saxons as still
the least formidable. .... It was with this view that Britain
turned to what seemed the weakest of her assailants, and
strove to find ... troops whom she could use as mercenaries
against the Pict."
J. R. Green, The Making of England, introduction.
ALSO IN:
J. M. Lappenberg, History of England under the
Anglo-Saxon Kings, volume 1, pages 57-66.
BRITAIN: A. D. 446.
The Last Appeal To Rome.
"Yet once again a supplicating embassy was sent to the Roman
general Ætius, during his third consulship, in the year 446.
... Ætius was unable to help them."
J. M. Lappenberg, History of England under the
Anglo-Saxon Kings, page 63.
"The date of the letters of appeal is fixed by the form of
their address: 'The groans of the Britons to Ætius for the
third time Consul. The savages drive us to the sea and the sea
casts us back upon the savages: so arise two kinds of
death, and we are either drowned or slaughtered.' The third
Consulate of Aetius fell in A. D. 446, a year memorable in the
West as the beginning of a profound calm which preceded the
onslaught of Attila. The complaint of Britain has left no
trace in the poems which celebrated the year of repose; and
our Chronicles are at any rate wrong when they attribute its
rejection to the stress of a war with the Huns. It is
possible, indeed, that the appeal was never made, and that the
whole story represents nothing but a rumour current in the
days of Gildas among the British exiles in Armorica."
C. Elton, Origins of English History, chapter 12.
{323}
BRITAIN: A. D. 449-633.
The Anglo-Saxon Conquest.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473, to 547-633.
BRITAIN: 6th CENTURY.
The Unsubdued Britons.
"The Britons were soon restricted to the western parts of the
island, where they maintained themselves in several small
states, of which those lying to the east yielded more and more
to Germanic influence; the others protected by their
mountains, preserved for a considerable time a gradually
decreasing independence. ... In the south-west we meet with
the powerful territory of Damnonia, the kingdom of Arthur,
which bore also the name of West Wales. Damnonia, at a later
period, was limited to Dyvnaint, or Devonshire, by the
separation of Cernau, or Cornwall. The districts called by the
Saxons those of the Sumorsætas, of the Thornsætas
(Dorsetshire). and the Wiltsætas were lost to the kings of
Dyvnaint at an early period; though for centuries afterwards a
large British population maintained itself in those parts
among the Saxon settlers, as well as among the Defnsætas, long
after the Saxon conquest of Dyvnaint, who for a considerable
time preserved to the natives of that shire the appellation of
the 'Welsh kind.' Cambria (Cymru), the country which at the
present day we call Wales, was divided into several states."
The chief of these early states was Venedotia (Gwynedd), the
king of which was supreme over the other states. Among these
latter were Dimetia (Dyved), or West Wales; Powys, which was
east of Gwynedd and Snowdon mountain; Gwent (Monmouthshire) or
South-east Wales, the country of the Silures. "The usages and
laws of the Cambrians were in all these states essentially the
same. An invaluable and venerable monument of them, although
of an age in which the Welsh had long been subject to the
Anglo-Saxons, and had adopted many of their institutions and
customs, are the laws of the king Howel Dda, who reigned in
the early part of the 10th century. ... The partition of
Cambria into several small states is not, as has often been
supposed, the consequence of a division made by king Rodri
Mawr, or Roderic the Great, among his sons. ... Of Dyfed,
during the first centuries after the coming of the Saxons, we
know very little; but with regard to Gwynedd, which was in
constant warfare with Northumbria and Mercia, our information
is less scanty: of Gwent, also, as the bulwark of Dimetia,
frequent mention occurs. On the whole we are less in want of a
mass of information respecting the Welsh, than of accuracy and
precision in that which we possess. ... An obscurity still
more dense than that over Wales involves the district lying to
the north of that country, comprised under the name of Cumbria."
J. M. Lappenberg, History of England under the
Anglo-Saxon Kings, volume 1, page 119-122.
See CUMBRIA AND STRATH-CLYDE.
BRITAIN: A. D. 635.
Defeat Of The Welsh By The English Of Bernicia.
See HEVENFIELD, BATTLE OF THE.
----------BRITAIN: End----------
BRITAIN, GREAT:
ADOPTION Of The Name For The United Kingdoms Of England And
Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.
BRITAIN, Roman Walls In.
See ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.
BRITANNIA,
The Origin Of The Name.
"Many are the speculations which have been started as to the
etymology of the word Britannia, and among the later ones have
been some of the most extraordinary. Yet surely it is not one
of those philological difficulties which we need despair of
solving. Few persons will question that the name Britannia is
connected with the name Britanni, in the same way as Germania,
Gallia, Graecia, &c., with Germani, Galli, Graeci, &c., and it
is not unreasonable to assume that Britanni was originally
nothing more than the Latinized form of the Welsh word
Brython, a name which we find given in the Triads to one of
the three tribes who first colonized Britain. ... From the
Welsh 'brith' and Irish 'brit,' parti-coloured, may have come
Brython, which on this hypothesis would signify the painted
men. ... As far then as philology is concerned, there seems to
be no objection to our assuming Brython, and therefore also
Britanni, to signify the painted men. How this Celtic name
first came to denote the inhabitants of these islands is a
question, the proper answer to which lies deeper than is
generally supposed. ... The 'Britannic Isles' is the oldest
name we find given to these islands in the classical writers.
Under this title Polybius (3. 57) refers to them in connection
with the tin-trade, and the well-known work on the Kosmos (c.
3) mentions 'The Britannic Isles, Albion and Ierne.' ... But
in truth neither the authorship nor the age of this last-named
work has been satisfactorily settled, and therefore we cannot
assert that the phrase 'The Britannic Isles' came into use
before the second century B. C. The name Britannia first
occurs in the works of Cæsar and was not improbably invented
by him."
E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 2, chapter 1.
The etymology contended for by Dr. Guest is scouted by Mr.
Rhys, on principles of Celtic phonology. He, on the contrary,
traces relations between the name Brython and "the Welsh
vocables 'bethyn,' cloth, and its congeners," and concludes
that it signified "a clothed or cloth-clad people."
J. Rhys, Celtic Britain, chapter 6.
BRITANNIA PRIMA AND SECUNDA.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
{324}
BRITISH COLUMBIA: A. D. 1858-1871.
Establishment of provincial government.
Union with the Dominion of Canada.
"British Columbia, the largest of the Canadian provinces,
cannot be said to have had any existence as a colony until
1858. Previous to that year provision had been made by a
series of Acts for extending the Civil and Criminal Laws of
the Courts of Lower and Upper Canada over territories not
within any province, but otherwise the territory was used as a
hunting ground of the Hudson's Bay Company. The disputes and
difficulties that arose from the influx of miners owing to the
gold discoveries in 1856, resulted in the revocation of the
licence of the Hudson's Bay Company, and the passing of the
Imperial Act 21 & 22 Vic., c. 99, to provide for the
government of British Columbia. ... Sir James Douglas was
appointed Governor and by his commission he was authorised to
make laws, institutions and ordinances for the peace, order
and good government of British Columbia, by proclamation
issued under the public seal of the colony. ... The Governor
continued to legislate by proclamation until 1864, when his
proclamations gave way to Ordinances passed by the Governor
with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council. ... Up
to this time the Governor of British Columbia was also
Governor of the neighbouring island of Vancouver. Vancouver's
Island is historically an older colony than British Columbia.
Though discovered in 1592 it remained practically unknown to
Europeans for two centuries, and it was not until 1849, when
the island was granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, that a
Governor was appointed. ... In 1865 the legislature of the
island adopted a series of resolutions in favour of union with
British Columbia, and by the Imperial Act 29 & 30 Vic. (i),
c. 67, the two colonies were united. ... By an Order in Council
dated the 16th day of May, 1871, British Columbia was declared
to be a province of the Dominion [see CANADA: A. D. 1867, and
1869-1873] from the 20th of July, 1871."
J. E. C. Munro, The Constitution of Canada, chapter 2.
ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
volume 27: British Columbia.
BRITISH COLUMBIA: A. D. 1872.
Settlement Of The San Juan Water Boundary Dispute.
See SAN JUAN OR NORTHWESTERN WATER BOUNDARY QUESTION.
----------BRITISH COLUMBIA: End----------
BRITISH EAST AFRICA AND SOUTH AFRICA COMPANIES.
See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889.
BRITISH HONDURAS.
See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.
BRITONS, OR BRITHONS.
See CELTS; ALSO, BRITANNIA;
and BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.
BRITONS OF CUMBRIA AND STRATHCLYDE.
See CUMBRIA.
BRITTANY, OR BRITANNY:
In The Roman Period.
See ARMORICA;
also, VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.
BRITTANY: A. D. 383.
Alleged Origin Of The British Settlement And Name.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 383-388.
BRITTANY: A. D. 409.
Independence Asserted.
At the time that the British island practically severed its
connection with the expiring Roman Empire (about 409) the
Britons of the continent,--of the Armorican province, or
modern Brittany,--followed the example. "They expelled the
Roman magistrates, who acted under the authority of the
usurper Constantine; and a free government was established
among a people who had so long been subject to the arbitrary
will of a master."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 31.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
"From this time, perhaps, we ought to date that isolation of
Brittany from the politics of the rest of France which has not
entirely disappeared even at the present day."
T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 2, chapter 3.
The Armoricans, however, were found fighting by the side of
the Romans and the Goths, against the Huns, on the great day
at Chalons.
See HUNS: A. D. 451.
BRITTANY: A. D. 818-912.
The Breyzad Kingdom.
Subjection To The Norman Dukes.
"Charlemagne's supremacy over the Armoricans may be compared
to the dominion exercised by Imperial Russia amongst the
Caucasian tribes--periods during which the vassals dare not
claim the rights of independence, intercalated amongst the
converse periods when the Emperor cannot assert the rights of
authority; yet the Frank would not abandon the prerogative of
the Cæsars, whilst the mutual antipathy between the races
inflamed the desire of dominion on the one part, and the
determination of resistance on the other. Britanny is divided
into Bretagne Bretonnante and Bretagne Gallicante, according
to the predominance of the Breyzad and the Romane languages
respectively. The latter constituted the march-lands, and here
the Counts-marchers were placed by Charlemagne and his
successors, Franks mostly by lineage; yet one Breyzad,
Nominoë, was trusted by Louis-le-débonnaire [A. D. 818] with a
delegated authority. Nominoë deserved his power; he was one of
the new men of the era, literally taken from the plough. ...
The dissensions among the Franks enabled Nominoë to increase
his authority. Could there be any adversary of the Empire so
stupid as not to profit by the battle of Fontenay. ... Nominoë
assumed the royal title, vindicated the independence of his
ancient people, and enabled them, in the time of Rollo, to
assert with incorrect grandiloquence, pardonable in political
argument, that the Frank had never reigned within the proper
Armorican boundaries." Nominoë transmitted his crown to his
son Herispoë; but the latter reigned briefly, succumbing to a
conspiracy which raised his nephew, Solomon, to the throne.
Solomon was a vigorous warrior, sometimes fighting the Franks,
and sometimes struggling with the Normans, who pressed hard
upon his small kingdom. He extended his dominions
considerably, in Maine, Anjou, and the future Normandy, and
his royal title was sanctioned by Charles the Bald. But he,
too, was conspired against, blinded and dethroned, dying in
prison; and, about 912, the second duke of Normandy
established his lordship over the distracted country.
"Historical Britanny settled into four great counties, which
also absorbed the Carlovingian march-lands, Rennes, Nantes,
Vannes and Cornouailles, rivalling and jealousing, snarling
and warring against each other for the royal or ducal dignity,
until the supremacy was permanently established in Alan
Fergant's line, the ally, the opponent, the son-in-law of
William the Bastard. But the suzerainty or superiority of all
Britanny was vested in the Conqueror's and the Plantagenet's
lineage, till the forfeiture incurred by King John--an unjust
exercise of justice."
Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 3.
BRITTANY: A. D. 992-1237.
The First Dukes.
"After the death of Solomon ... all these districts or
territories merged in the three dominations of Nantes, Rennes,
and Cornouaille. Amongst the Celts concord was impossible. In
early times Nomenoe, the Ruler of Cornouaille, had assumed, by
Papal authority, the royal style, but the Counts of Rennes
acquired the pre-eminence over the other chieftains. Regality
vanished. Geoffrey, son of Conan [A. D. 992-1008] ... must be
distinguished as the first Duke of Brittany. He constituted
himself Duke simply by taking the title. This assumption may
possibly have been sanctioned by the successor of Saint Peter;
and, by degrees, his rank in the civil hierarchy became
ultimately recognized. ... The Counts of Brittany, and the
Dukes in like manner, in later times, rendered homage 'en
parage' to Normandy in the first instance, and that same
homage was afterwards demanded by the crown of France. But the
Capetian monarchs refused to acknowledge the 'Duke,' until the
time of Peter Mauclerc, son of Robert, Count of Dreux, Earl of
Richmond [A. D. 1213-1237]."
Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England.,
volume 3, page 165.
{325}
BRITTANY: A. D. 1341-1365.
The Long Civil War.
Montfort Against Blois.
Almost simultaneously with the beginning of the Hundred Years
War of the English kings in France, there broke out a
malignant and destructive civil war in Brittany, which French
and English took part in, on the opposing sides. "John III.
duke of that province, had died without issue, and two rivals
disputed his inheritance. The one was Charles de Blois,
husband of one of his nieces and nephew of the King of France;
the other, Montfort, ... younger brother of the last duke and
... disinherited by him. The Court of Peers, devoted to the
king, adjudged the duchy to Charles de Blois, his nephew.
Montfort immediately made himself master of the strongest
places, and rendered homage for Brittany to king Edward [III.
of England], whose assistance he implored. This war, in which
Charles de Blois was supported by France and Montfort by
England, lasted twenty-four years without interruption, and
presented, in the midst of heroic actions, a long course of
treacheries and atrocious robberies." The war was ended in
1365 by the battle of Auray, in which Charles de Blois was
slain, and Bertrand Du Guesclin, the famous Breton warrior,
was taken prisoner. This was soon followed by the treaty of
Guérande, which established Montfort in the duchy.
E. De Bonnechose, History of France,
volume 1, book 2, chapter 2 and 4.
ALSO IN:
Froissart (Johnes), Chronicles, book 1, chapter 64-227.
BRITTANY: A. D. 1491.
Joined By Marriage To The French Crown.
The family of Montfort, having been established in the duchy
of Brittany by the arms of the English, were naturally
inclined to English connections; "but the Bretons would seldom
permit them to be effectual. Two cardinal feelings guided the
conduct of this brave and faithful people; the one an
attachment to the French nation and monarchy in opposition to
foreign enemies; the other, a zeal for their own privileges,
and the family of Montfort, in opposition to the encroachments
of the crown. In Francis II., the present duke [at the time of
the accession of Charles VIII. of France, A. D. 1483], the
male line of that family was about to be extinguished. His
daughter Anne was naturally the object of many suitors, among
whom were particularly distinguished the duke of Orleans, who
seems to have been preferred by herself; the lord of Albret, a
member of the Gascon family of Foix, favoured by the Breton
nobility, as most likely to preserve the peace and liberties
of their country, but whose age rendered him not very
acceptable to a youthful princess; and Maximilian, king of the
Romans [whose first wife, Mary of Burgundy, died in 1482].
Britany was rent by factions and overrun by the armies of the
regent of France, who did not lose this opportunity of
interfering with its domestic troubles, and of persecuting her
private enemy, the duke of Orleans. Anne of Britany, upon her
father's death, finding no other means of escaping the
addresses of Albret, was married by proxy to Maximilian. This,
however, aggravated the evils of the country, since France was
resolved at all events to break off so dangerous a connexion.
And as Maximilian himself was unable, or took not sufficient
pains to relieve his betrothed wife from her embarrassments,
she was ultimately compelled to accept the hand of Charles
VIII. He had long been engaged by the treaty of Arras to marry
the daughter of Maximilian, and that princess was educated at
the French court. But this engagement had not prevented
several years of hostilities, and continual intrigues with the
towns of Flanders against Maximilian. The double injury which
the latter sustained in the marriage of Charles with the
heiress of Britany seemed likely to excite a protracted
contest; but the king of France, who had other objects in
view, and perhaps was conscious that he had not acted a fair
part, soon came to an accommodation, by which he restored
Artois and Franche-comté. ... France was now consolidated into
a great kingdom: the feudal system was at an end."
H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 1, part 2.
In the contract of marriage between Charles VIII. and Anne of
Brittany, "each party surrendered all separate pretensions
upon the Duchy, and one stipulation alone was considered
requisite to secure the perpetual union of Bretany with
France, namely, that in case the queen should survive her
consort, she should not remarry unless either with the future
king, or, if that were not possible, with the presumptive heir
of the crown."
E. Smedley, History of France, part 1, chapter 18.
ALSO IN:
F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 26.
BRITTANY: A. D. 1532.
Final Reunion With The Crown Of France.
"Duprat [chancellor of Francis I. of France], whose
administration was ... shameful, promoted one measure of high
utility. Francis I. until then had governed Brittany only in
the quality of duke of that province; Duprat counselled him to
unite this duchy in an indissoluble manner with the crown, and
he prevailed upon the States of Brittany themselves to request
this reunion, which alone was capable of preventing the
breaking out of civil wars at the death of the king. It was
irrevocably voted by the States assembled at Vannes in 1532.
The king swore to respect the rights of Brittany, and not to
raise any subsidy therein without the consent of the States
Provincial."
E. de Bonnechose, History of France, book 1, chapter 2.
BRITTANY: A. D. 1793.
Resistance To The French Revolution.
The Vendean War.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-APRIL); (JUNE);
(JULY-DECEMBER).
BRITTANY: A. D. 1794-1796.
The Chouans.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.
----------BRITTANY: End----------
BRIXHAM CAVE.
A cavern near Brixham, Devonshire, England, in which noted
evidences of a very early race of men, contemporaneous with
certain extinct animals, have been found.
J. Geikie, Prehistoric Europe.
ALSO IN: W. B. Dawkins, Cave Hunting.
{326}
BROAD-BOTTOMED ADMINISTRATION, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1742-1745.
BROAD CHURCH, The.
See OXFORD OR TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.
BROCK, General Isaac, and the War of 1812.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812
(JUNE-OCTOBER), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
BROMSEBRO, PEACE OF (1645).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
BRONKHORST SPRUIT, Battle of (1880).
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1880.
BRONZE AGE.
See STONE AGE.
BROOKLYN, New York: A. D. 1624.
The First Settlers.
"A few families of Walloons, in 1624, built their cottages on
Long Island, and began the cultivation of the lands they had
secured, the women working in the fields, while the men were
engaged in the service of the company [the Dutch West India
Company, controlling the colony of New Netherland]. These were
the first settlers of Brooklyn. They were joined in time by a
few others, until there were enough to be incorporated as a
village. The numbers were not large, for Brooklyn, nearly
forty years afterward, contained only 31 households and 134
souls."
G. V. Schuyler, Colonial New York, York, v 1, page 27.
BROOKLYN: A. D. 1646.
The Town Named And Organized.
"The occupation of land within the limits of the present city
of Brooklyn ... had steadily progressed, until now (1646)
nearly the whole water-front, from Newtown Creek to the
southerly side of Gowanus Bay, was in the possession of
individuals who were engaged in its actual cultivation. ...
The village ... which was located on the present Fulton
Avenue, in the vicinity of the junction of Hoyt and Smith
streets with said avenue, and southeast of the present City
Hall, was called Breuckelen, after the ancient village of the
same name in Holland, some 18 miles from Amsterdam." The town
of Breuckelen was organized under a commission from the
Colonial Council in 1646, and two schepens appointed. The
following winter Jan Teunissen was commissioned as schout.
H. R. Stiles, History of Brooklyn, chapter 1.
BROOKLYN: A. D. 1776.
The Battle Of Long Island And Defeat Of The Americans.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).
----------BROOKLYN: End----------
BROTHERS.--BROTHERHOODS.
See BRETHREN.
BROTHERS' CLUB, The.
See CLUBS.
BROWN, GEORGE, AND THE CANADIAN "CLEAR GRITS."
See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.
BROWN, GENERAL JACOB, AND THE WAR OF 1812.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812
(SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER); 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER);
1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
BROWN, John.
Attack On Harper's Ferry.
Trial And Execution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859.
BROWNISTS.
See INDEPENDENTS.
BROWNLOW, PARSON, AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE.
See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866.
BRUCE, Robert, King of Scotland, A. D. 1305-1329.
BRUCHIUM, The.
See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246, and A. D. 273.
BRUCTERI, The.
"After the Tencteri [on the Rhine] came, in former days, the
Bructeri; but the general account now is, that the Chamavi and
Angrivarii entered their settlements, drove them out and
utterly exterminated them with the common help of the
neighbouring tribes, either from hatred of their tyranny, or
from the attractions of plunder, or from heaven's favourable
regard for us. It did not even grudge us the spectacle of the
conflict. More than 60,000 fell, not beneath the Roman arms
and weapons, but, grander far, before our delighted eyes."
"The original settlements of the Bructeri, from which they
were driven by the Chamavi and Angrivarii, seem to have been
between the Rhine and the Ems, on either side of the Lippe.
Their destruction could hardly have been so complete as
Tacitus represents, as they are subsequently mentioned by
Claudian."
Tacitus, Minor works, translated by Church and Brodribb:
The Germany, with geographical notes.
See, also, FRANKS.
BRUGES: 13th CENTURY.
The Great Fair.
See FLANDERS: 13th CENTURY.
BRUGES: A. D. 13th-15th CENTURIES.
Commercial Importance In The Hanseatic League.
See HANSA TOWNS.
BRUGES: A. D. 1302.
Massacre Of The French.
"The Bruges Matins."
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1299-1304.
BRUGES: A. D. 1341.
Made the Staple for English trade.
See STAPLE.
BRUGES: A. D. 1379-1381.
Hostilities With Ghent.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.
BRUGES: A. D. 1382.
Taken And Plundered By The People Of Ghent.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1382.
BRUGES: A. D. 1482-1488.
At War With Maximilian.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.
BRUGES: A. D. 1584.
Submission to Philip of Spain.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
BRUGES: A. D. 1745-1748.
Taken By The French, And Restored.
See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745;
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS, &c.
----------BRUGES: End----------
BRULÉ, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
BRUMAIRE, THE MONTH.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).
BRUMAIRE, THE EIGHTEENTH OF.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (NOVEMBER).
BRUNDISIUM:
Origin.
See ROME: B. C. 282-275.
BRUNDISIUM: B. C.49.
Flight of Pompeius before Cæsar.
See ROME: B. C. 50-49.
BRUNDISIUM: B. C. 40.
The Peace Of Antony And Octavius.
The peace which Antony and Octavius were forced by their own
soldiers to make at Brundisium, B. C. 40, postponed for ten
years the final struggle between the two chief Triumvirs. For
a much longer time it "did at least secure the repose of
Italy. For a period of three hundred and fifty years, except
one day's fighting in the streets of Rome, from Rhegium to the
Rubicon no swords were again crossed in war."
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 27.
See also, ROME: B. C. 31.
----------BRUNDISIUM: End----------
BRUNKEBURG, Battle of the (1471).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.
BRUNNABURGH, OR BRUNANBURH, BATTLE OF.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 938.
BRUNSWICK, THE CITY OF.
Origin And Name.
In the tenth century, a prince named Bruno, younger son of the
reigning duke of Bavaria, and grandson of the Emperor Henry
the Fowler, received as his patrimony the country about the
Ocker. "Having fixed his residence at a village established by
Charlemagne on the banks of that river, it became known as the
'Vicus Brunonis,' and, when enlarged and formed into a city,
afterwards gave its name to the principality of which it
formed the capital."
Sir A. Halliday, Annals of the House of Hanover,
volume 1, book 4.
{327}
BRUNSWICK: IN THE HANSEATIC LEAGUE.
See HANSA TOWNS.
BRUNSWICK-LÜNEBURG, OR HANOVER.
See HANOVER.
BRUNSWICK-WOLFENBÜTTEL, OR BRUNSWICK:
Origin Of The House And Dukedom.
See SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY,
and A. D. 1178-1183.
BRUNSWICK: THE GUELF CONNECTION.
See GUELF AND GHIBELLINE, AND ESTE, HOUSE OF.
BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1543.
Expulsion Of Duke Henry By
The League Of Smalcald.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.
BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1546.
Final Separation From The Lüneburg Or Hanoverian Branch Of The
House.
See HANOVER: A. D. 1546.
BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1806.
The Duke's Dominions Confiscated By Napoleon.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1807.
Absorbed In The Kingdom Of Westphalia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).
BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1830.
Deposition of the Duke.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1819-1847.
----------BRUNSWICK: End----------
BRUSSELS: A. D. 1577.
The Union Of The Patriots.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.
BRUSSELS: A. D. 1585.
Surrender to the Spaniards.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
BRUSSELS: A. D. 1695.
BOMBARDMENT BY THE FRENCH.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696.
BRUSSELS: A. D. 1706.
Taken By Marlborough And The Allies.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.
BRUSSELS: A. D. 1746-1748.
Taken By The French And Restored To Austria.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747,
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS, &c.
BRUSSELS: A. D. 1815.
The Battle Of Waterloo.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).
BRUSSELS: A. D. 1830.
Riot And Revolution.
Dutch Attack On The City Repelled.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.
----------BRUSSELS: End----------
BRUTTII, The.
See SAMNITES.
BRUTUM FULMEN.
A phrase, signifying a blind thrust, or a stupid and
ineffectual blow, which was specially applied in a
contemporary pamphlet by Francis Hotman to the Bull of
excommunication issued by Pope Sixtus V. against Henry of
Navarre, in 1585.
H. M. Baird, The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre,
volume 1, page 369.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.
BRUTUS, LUCIUS JUNIUS, AND THE EXPULSION OF THE TARQUINS.
See ROME: B. C. 510.
BRUTUS, MARCUS JUNIUS, AND THE ASSASSINATION OF CAESAR.
See ROME: B. C. 44 to 44-42.
BRYTHONS, The.
See CELTS, THE.
BUBASTIS.
"On the eastern side of the Delta [of the Nile], more than
half-way from Memphis to Zoan, lay the great city of
Pi-beseth, or Bubastis. Vast mounds now mark the site and
preserve the name; deep in their midst lie the shattered
fragments of the beautiful temple which Herodotus saw, and to
which in his days the Egyptians came annually in vast numbers
to keep the greatest festival of the year, the Assembly of
Bast, the goddess of the place. Here, after the Empire had
fallen, Shishak [Sheshonk] set up his throne, and for a short
space revived the imperial magnificence of Thebes."
R. S. Poole, Cities of Egypt, chapter 10.
BUCCANEERS, The.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.
BUCENTAUR, The.
See VENICE: 14TH CENTURY.
BUCHANAN, JAMES.
Presidential Election And Administration.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856 to 1861.
BUCHAREST, TREATY OF (1812).
See TURKS: A. D. 1789-1812;
also BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-19TH CENTURIES
(SERVIA).
BUCKINGHAM, ASSASSINATION OF.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1628.
BUCKINGHAM PALACE.
See ST. JAMES, THE PALACE AND COURT OF.
BUCKTAILS.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819.
BUDA: A. D. 1526.
Taken And Plundered By The Turks.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.
BUDA: A. D. 1529-1567.
Taken by the Turks.
Besieged by the Austrians.
Occupied by the Sultan.
Becomes the seat of a Pasha.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.
BUDA: A. D. 1686.
Recovery from the Turks.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1687.
BUDA: A. D. 1849.
Siege And Capture By The Hungarians.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
----------BUDA: End----------
BUDA-PESTH: A. D. 1872.
Union Of The Cities.
Buda, on the right bank of the Danube, and Pesth, on the left,
were incorporated in 1872 into one city--Buda-Pesth.
BUDDHISM.
See INDIA: B. C. 312;
also LAMAS.--LAMAISM;
and CHINA: THE RELIGIONS.
BUDGET, The.
"The annual financial statement which the Chancellor of the
Exchequer makes in the House of Commons in a Committee of ways
and means. In making this statement the minister gives a view
of the general financial policy of the government, and at the
same time presents an estimate of the probable income and
expenditure for the following twelve months, and a statement
of what taxes it is intended to reduce or abolish, or what new
ones it may be necessary to impose.--To open the budget, to
lay before the legislative body the financial estimates and
plans of the executive government."
Imp. Dict.
Mr. Dowell in his History of Taxation (volume 1, chapter 5) states that the phrase 'opening the Budget' came into use in
England during the reign of George III., and that it bore a
reference to the bougette, or little bag, in which the

chancellor of the exchequer kept his papers. The French, he
adds, adopted the term in the present century, about 1814. The
following, however, is in disagreement with Mr. Dowell's
explanation: "In the reign of George II. the word was used
with conscious allusion to the celebrated pamphlet which
ridiculed Sir R. Walpole as a conjuror opening his budget or
'bag of tricks.' Afterwards, it must, for a time, have been
current as slang; but, as it supplied a want, it was soon
taken up into the ordinary vocabulary."
Athenæum, February 14, 1891, page 213.
{328}
BUDINI, The.
A nomadic tribe which Herodotus describes as anciently
inhabiting a region between the Ural Mountains and the Caspian
Sea.
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 17.
BUELL, GENERAL DON CARLOS, CAMPAIGNS OF.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER);
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE);
A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE);
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).
BUENA VISTA, BATTLE OF.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.
BUENOS AYRES, VICEROYALTY AND REPUBLIC OF.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.
BUENOS AYRES, The City of: A. D. 1534.
First and unsuccessful founding of the city.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.
BUFFALO, New York:
The Aboriginal Occupants Of The Site.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.
BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1764.
Cession Of The Four Mile Strip By The Senecas.
See PONTIAC'S WAR.
BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1779.
The Site Occupied By The Senecas After Sullivan's Expedition.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1799.
The founding and naming of the city.
See NEW YORK A. D. 1786-1799.
BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1812.
At The Opening Of The War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812
(SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1813.
Destruction by British and Indians.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (DECEMBER).
BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1825.
Opening of the Erie Canal.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1825.
BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1848.
The National Free-soil Convention.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1866.
The Fenian Invasion Of Canada.
See CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.
----------BUFFALO, New York: End----------
BUFFALO HILL, Battles of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
(AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).
BUFFINGTON FORD, BATTLE OF.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).
BUGIA, CONQUEST BY THE SPANIARDS (1510).
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.
BULGARIA.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.
BULGARIANS, THE RELIGIOUS SECTARIES SO CALLED.
See PAULICIANS.
BULL "APOSTOLICUM," The.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.
BULL "AUSCULTA FILI," The.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.
BULL "CLERICIS LAICOS."
Published by Pope Boniface VIII. February 24, 1296, forbidding
"the clergy to pay and the secular powers to exact, under
penalty of excommunication, contributions or taxes, tenths,
twentieths, hundredths, or the like, from the revenues or the
goods of the churches or their ministers."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
chapter 14.
ALSO IN: E. F. Henderson, Select Historical
Documents of the Middle Ages, book 4, number 6.
See, also, PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.
BULL "DOMINUS REDEMPTOR NOSTER."
See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.
BULL "EXURGE DOMINE."
See PAPACY: A. D. 1517-1521.
BULL, Golden.
See GOLDEN BULL, BYZANTINE;
also GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.
and HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.
BULL, "LAUDABILITER," The.
A papal bull promulgated in 1155 by Pope Adrian IV. (the one
Englishman who ever attained to St. Peter's seat) assuming to
bestow the kingdom of Ireland on the English King Henry II.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.
BULL, "SALVATOR MUNDI," THE.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.
BULL "UNIGENITUS," THE.
See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.
BULL RUN, OR MANASSAS, FIRST BATTLE OF.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.
1861 (JULY: VIRGINIA).
BULL RUN, SECOND BATTLE OF.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).
BULLA, THE.
See TOGA.
BUMMERS, SHERMAN'S.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).
BUND, BUNDESRATH, BUNDESPRESIDENT, BUNDESGERICHT, THE SWISS.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.
BUNDES-STAAT.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.
BUNDSCHUH INSURRECTIONS.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1492-1514.
BUNKER HILL, BATTLE OF.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JUNE).
BURDIGALA.
The original name of the modern city of Bordeaux, which was a
town of the Gallic tribe called the Bituriges-Vivisci.
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 7.
BURGAGE TENURE.
See FEUDAL TENURES.
BURGESS.
See BOURGEOIS.
BURGH, OR BURGI, OR BURH.
See BOROUGH.
BURGOS, BATTLE OF.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
BURGOYNE, GENERAL JOHN, AND THE WAR OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY);
A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
BURGRAVES.
See PALATINE, COUNTS.
BURGUNDIANS:
Origin And Early History.
"About the middle of the fourth century, the countries,
perhaps of Lusace and Thuringia, on either side of the Elbe,
were occupied by the vague dominion of the Burgundians--a
warlike and numerous people of the Vandal race, whose obscure
name insensibly swelled into a powerful kingdom, and has
finally settled on a flourishing province. . . . The disputed
possession of some salt-pits engaged the Alemanni and the
Burgundians in frequent contests. The latter were easily
tempted by the secret solicitations and liberal offers of the
emperor [Valentinian, A. D. 371]; and their fabulous descent
from the Roman soldiers who had formerly been left to garrison
the fortresses of Drusus was admitted with mutual credulity,
as it was conducive to mutual interest. An army of fourscore
thousand Burgundians soon appeared on the banks of the Rhine,
and impatiently required the support and subsidies which
Valentinian had promised; but they were amused with excuses
and delays, till at length, after a fruitless expectation,
they were compelled to retire. The arms and fortifications of
the Gallic frontier checked the fury of their just
resentment."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 25.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
{329}
"We first hear of them [the Burgundians] as a tribe of
Teutonic stock, located between the Oder and the Vistula, on
either bank of the river Warta. When the Gepidæ descended
southward with the Goths, the Burgundians were compelled to
recoil before the advance of the former tribe: one portion of
them took refuge in Bornholm, an island of the Baltic; the
remainder turned westward, and made an attempt to enter Gaul.
They were repulsed by Probus, but permitted to settle near the
sources of the Main. Jovian showed them favour, and gave them
lands in the Germania Secunda. This was in the latter part of
the fourth century. Just at its close, they adopted
Christianity, but under an Arian form. Ammianus tells us that
they were a most warlike race."
J. G. Sheppard, The Fall of Rome, lecture 8.
"The other Teutonic people had very little regard for the
Burgundians; they accused them of having degenerated from the
valor of their ancestors, by taking in petty towns
(bourgades), whence their name Burgundii sprang; and they
looked upon them as being more suitable for the professions of
mechanics, smiths, and carpenters, than for a military life."
J. C. L. de Sismondi, The French under the
Merovingians, chapter 3.
"A document of A. D. 786, in noticing the high tract of lands
between Ellwangen and Anspach, has the following
expression,--'in Waldo, qui vocatur Virgunnia.' Grimm looks
for the derivation of this word in the Mœso-Gothic word
'fairguni,' Old High 'German 'fergunnd'=woody hill-range. ...
I have little doubt but that this is the name of the tract of
land from which the name Burgundi arose; and that it is the
one which fixes their locality. If so, between the Burgundian
and Suevic Germans, the difference, such as it was, was
probably, almost wholly political."
R. G. Latham, The Germania of Tacitus; Epilegomena,
section 12.
BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 406-409.
Invasion Of Gaul.
See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.
BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451.
Their Savoyan Kingdom.
"In the south-east of Gaul, the Burgundians had, after many
wars and some reverses, established themselves (443) with the
consent of the Romans in the district then called Sapaudia and
now Savoy. Their territory was somewhat more extensive than
the province which was the cradle of the present royal house
of Italy, since it stretched northwards beyond the lake of
Neufchatel and southwards as far as Grenoble. Here the
Burgundian immigrants under their king Gundiok, were busy
settling themselves in their new possession, cultivating the
lands which they had divided by lot, each one receiving half
the estate of a Roman host or 'hospes' (for under such gentle
names the spoliation was veiled), when the news came that the
terrible Hun had crossed the Rhine [A. D. 451], and that all
hosts and guests in Gaul must unite for its defence."
T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 2, chapter 3.
BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 451.
At The Battle Of Chalons.
See HUNS: A. D. 451.
BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 500.
Extension Of Their Kingdom.
"Their [the Burgundians] domain, considerably more extensive
than when we last viewed it on the eve of Attila's invasion,
now included the later provinces of Burgundy, Franche-Comté
and Dauphiné, besides Savoy and the greater part of
Switzerland--in fact the whole of the valleys of the Saone and
the Rhone, save that for the last hundred miles of its course
the Visigoths barred them from the right bank and from the
mouths of the latter river." At the time now spoken of (A. D.
500), the Burgundian kingdom was divided between two
brother-kings, Gundobad, reigning at Lyons and Vienne, and
Godegisel at Geneva. Godegisel, the younger, had conspired
with Clovis, the king of the Franks, against Gundobad, and in
this year 500 the two confederates defeated the latter, at
Dijon, driving him from the most part of his kingdom. But
Gundobad presently recovered his footing, besieged and
captured his treacherous brother at Vienne and promptly put
him to death--thereby reuniting the kingdom.
T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 4, chapter 9.
BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 534.
Final Conquest By The Franks.
"I am impatient to pursue the final ruin of that kingdom [the
Burgundian] which was accomplished under the reign of
Sigismond, the son of Gundobald [or Gundobad]. The Catholic
Sigismond has acquired the honours of a saint and martyr; but
the hands of the royal saint were stained with the blood of
his innocent son. ... It was his humble prayer that Heaven
would inflict in this world the punishment of his sins. His
prayer was heard; the avengers were at hand; and the provinces
of Burgundy were overwhelmed by an army of victorious Franks.
After the event of an unsuccessful battle, Sigismond ... with
his wife and two children, was transported to Orleans and
buried alive in a deep well by the stern command of the sons
of Clovis, whose cruelty might derive some excuse from the
maxims and examples of their barbarous age. ... The rebellious
Burgundians, for they attempted to break their chains, were
still permitted to enjoy their national laws under the
obligation of tribute and military service; and the
Merovingian princes peaceably reigned over a kingdom whose
glory and greatness had been first overthrown by the arms of
Clovis."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 38.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ALSO IN: W. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 3.
----------BURGUNDIANS: End----------
BURGUNDY: A. D. 534-752.
The Merovingian Kingdom.
After the overthrow of the Burgundian monarchy by the sons of
Clovis, the territory of the Burgundians, with part of the
neighboring Frank territory added to it, became, under the
name of Burgundia or Burgundy, one of the three Frank kingdoms
(Austrasia and Neustria being the other two), into which the
Merovingian princes divided their dominion. It occupied "the
east of the country, between the Loire and the Alps, from
Provence on the south to the hill-ranges of the Vosges on the
north."
P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul, chapter 13.
BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.
Divisions of the early kingdom.
The later kingdoms of the south and the French dukedom of the
northwest.
By the treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, which formally divided the
empire of Charlemagne between his three grandsons, a part of
Burgundy was taken to form, with Italy and Lorraine, the
kingdom of the Emperor Lothar, or Lothaire. In the further
dissolutions which followed, a kingdom of Burgundy or Provence
was founded in 877 by one Boso, a prince who had married
Irmingard, daughter of the Emperor Louis II., son of Lothaire.
It "included Provence, Dauphiné, the southern part of Savoy,
and the country between the Saone and the Jura," and is
sometimes called the kingdom of Cis-Jurane Burgundy. "The
kingdom of Trans-Jurane Burgundy, ... founded by Rudolf in A.
D. 888, recognized in the same year by the Emperor Arnulf,
included the northern part of Savoy, and all Switzerland
between the Reuss and the Jura."
J. Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire,
chapter 6, and appendix, note A.
{330}
"The kingdoms of Provence and Transjuran Burgundy were united,
in 933, by Raoul II., King of Transjuran Burgundy, and formed
the kingdom of Arles, governed, from 937 to 993, by Conrad le
Pacifique."
F. Guizot, History of Civilization, lecture 24.
Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 4.
"Several of the greater and more commercial towns of France,
such as Lyons, Vienne, Geneva, Besançon, Avignon, Arles,
Marseille and Grenoble were situated within the bounds of his
[Conrad the Pacific's] states."
J. C. L. de Sismondi, France Under the Feudal
System, chapter 2.
"Of the older Burgundian kingdom, the northwestern part,
forming the land best known as the Duchy of Burgundy, was, in
the divisions of the ninth century, a fief of Karolingia or
the Western Kingdom. This is the Burgundy which has Dijon for
its capital, and which was held by more than one dynasty of
dukes as vassals of the Western kings, first at Laon, and then
at Paris. This Burgundy, which, as the name of France came to
bear its modern sense may be distinguished as the French
Duchy, must be carefully distinguished from the Royal
Burgundy" of the Cis-Jurane and Trans-Jurane kingdoms
mentioned above.
E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 6, section 1.
BURGUNDY: A. D, 888-1032.
The French Dukedom.
The Founding Of The First Capetian House.
Of the earliest princes of this northwestern fragment of the
old kingdom of Burgundy little seems to have been
discoverable. The fief and its title do not seem to have
become hereditary until they fell into the grasping hands of
the Capetian family, which happened just at the time when the
aspiring counts of Paris were rising to royal rank. In the
early years of the tenth century the reigning count or duke
was Richard-le-Justicier, whose distinguishing princely virtue
is recorded in his name. This Richard-le-Justicier was a
brother of that Boso, or Boson, son-in-law of the Emperor
Louis II., who took advantage of the confusions of the time to
fashion for himself a kingdom of Burgundy in the South
(Cis-Jurane Burgundy, or Provence,--see above). Richard's son
Raoul, or Rudolph, married Emma, the daughter of Robert, Count
of Paris and Duke of France, who was soon afterwards chosen
king, by the nobles who tired of Carlovingian misrule. King
Robert's reign was short; he fell in battle with the
Carlovingians, at Soissons, the next year (A. D. 923). His son
Hugh, called Le Grand, or The Great, found it more to his
taste to be king-maker than to be king. He declined the
proffered crown, and brought about the coronation of his
brother-in-law, the Burgundian Rudolph, who reigned for eleven
years. When he died, in 934, Hugh the Great still held the
crown at his disposal and still refused to wear it himself. It
now pleased this king-maker to set a Carlovingian prince on
the throne, in the person of Louis d'Outre Mer, a young son of
Charles the Simple, who had been reared in England by his
English mother. But, if Duke Hugh cared nothing for the name,
he cared much for the substance, of power. He grasped dominion
wherever it fell within his reach, and the Burgundian duchy
was among the states which he clutched. King Rudolph left no
son to inherit either his dukedom or his kingdom. He had a
brother, Hugh, who claimed the Duchy; but the greater Hugh was
too strong for him and secured, with the authority of the
young king, his protegé, the title of Duke of Burgundy and the
larger part of the domain. "In the Duchy of France or the
County of Paris Hugh-le-Grand had nothing beyond the
regalities to desire, and both in Burgundy and the Duchy he
now became an irremovable Viceroy. But the privileges so
obtained by Hugh-le-Grand produced very important political
results, both present and future. Hugh assumed even a loftier
bearing than before; Burgundy was annexed to the Duchy of
France, and passed with the Duchy; and the grant thereof made
by Hugh Capet to his son [brother?] Henri-le-Grand, severing
the same from the crown, created the premier Duchy of
Christendom, the most splendid appanage which a prince of the
third race [the Capetians] could enjoy--the rival of the
throne."
Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England,
book 1, part 2, chapter 1-4.
Hugh-le-Grand died in 956. "His power, which, more than his
talents or exploits, had given him the name of Great, was
divided between his children, who were yet very young. ...
There is some doubt as to their number and the order of their
birth. It appears, however, that Otho was the eldest of his
three sons. He had given him his part of the duchy of
Burgundy, and had made him marry the daughter and heir of
Gislebert, duke of another part of Burgundy, to which Otho
succeeded the same year. The latter dying in 963 or 965, the
duchy of Burgundy passed to his third brother, sometimes named
Henry, sometimes Eudes. Hugues [Hugh], surnamed Capet, who
succeeded to the county of Paris and the duchy of France, was
but the second son."
J. C. L. de Sismondi, The French under the
Carlovingians, chapter 15.
In 987 Hugh Capet became king of France and founded the
lasting dynasty which bears his name. His elder brother Henry
remained Duke of Burgundy until his death, in 1002, when his
royal nephew, Robert, son and successor of Hugh, annexed the
Duchy to the Crown. It so remained until 1032. Then King Henry
I., son of Robert, granted it as an appanage to his brother
Robert, who founded the first Capetian House of Burgundy.
E. de Bonnechose, History of France,
book 1, chapter 2.
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.
The Last Kingdom.
Its Union With Germany, And Its Dissolution.
The last kingdom which bore the name of Burgundy--though more
often called the kingdom of Arles--formed, as stated above,
by the union of the short-lived kingdoms of Provence and
Transjurane Burgundy, became in 1032 nominally united to the
dominions of the Emperor-King of Germany. Its last independent
king was Rudolf III., son of Conrad the Pacific, who was uncle
to the Emperor Henry II. Being childless, he named Henry his
heir. The latter, however, died first, in 1024, and Rudolf
attempted to cancel his bequest, claiming that it was made to
Henry personally, not as King of the Germans. When, however,
the Burgundian king died, in 1032, the then reigning Emperor,
Conrad the Salic, or the Franconian, formally proclaimed the
union of Burgundy with Germany. "But since Burgundy was ruled
almost exclusively by the great nobility, the sovereignty of
the German Emperors there was never much more than nominal.
Besides, the country, from the Bernese Oberland to the
Mediterranean, except that part of Allemannia which is now
German Switzerland, was inhabited by a Romance people, too
distinct in language, customs and laws from the German empire
ever really to form a part of it. ... Yet Switzerland was
thenceforth connected forever with the development of Germany,
and for 500 years remained a part of the empire."
C. T. Lewis, History of Germany, book 2, chapter 6-7.
{331}
"The weakness of Rodolph-le-Fainéant [Rodolph III., who made
Henry II. of Germany his heir, as stated above], gave the
great lords of the kingdom of Arles an opportunity of
consolidating their independence. Among these one begins to
remark Berchtold and his son, Humbert-aux-Blanches-Mains (the
White-handed), Counts of Maurienne, and founders of the House
of Savoy; Otto William, who it is pretended was the son of
Adalbert, King of Italy, and heir by right of his mother to
the county of Burgundy, was the founder of the sovereign house
of Franche-Comté [County Palatine of Burgundy]; Guigue, Count
of Albon, founder of the sovereign house of the dauphins of
Viennois; and William, who it is pretended was the issue of a
brother of Rodolph of Burgundy, King of France, and who was
sovereign count of Provence. These four lords had, throughout
the reign of Rodolph, much more power than he in the kingdom
of Arles; and when at his death his crown was united to that
of the Empire, the feudatories who had grown great at his
expense became almost absolutely independent. On the other
hand, their vassals began on their side to acquire importance
under them; and in Provence can be traced at this period the
succession of the counts of Forcalquier and of Venaissin, of
the princes of Orange, of the viscounts of Marseille, of the
barons of Baux, of Sault, of Grignau, and of Castellane. We
can still follow the formation of a great number of other
feudatory or rather sovereign houses. Thus the counts of
Toulouse, those of Rouergue, the dukes of Gascony, the counts
of Foix, of Beam, and of Carcassone, date least from this
epoch; but their existence is announced to us only by their
diplomas and their wills."
J. C. L. de Sismondi, France under
the Feudal System, chapter 2.
See, also, PROVENCE: A. D. 943-1092, AND FRANCHE COMTÉ.
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378.
The Franco-Germanic Contest For The Valley Of The Rhone.
End Of The Kingdom Of Arles.
"As soon as the Capetian monarchs had acquired enough strength
at home to be able to look with safety abroad, they began to
make aggressions on the tempting and wealthy dependencies of
the distant emperors. But the Rhone valley was too important
in itself, and of too great strategical value as securing an
easy road to Italy, to make it possible for the emperors to
acquiesce easily in its loss. Hence a long conflict, which
soon became a national conflict of French and Germans, to
maintain the Imperial position in the 'middle kingdom' of the
Rhone valley. M. Fournier's book ['Le Royaume d' Arles et de
Vienne (1138-1178)'; par Paul Fournier] aims at giving an
adequate account of this struggle. ... From the times of the
mighty Barbarossa to the times of the pretentious and cunning
Charles of Luxemburg [see GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268, and A. D.
1347-1493], nearly every emperor sought by constant acts of
sovereignty to uphold his precarious powers in the Arelate.
Unable to effect much with their own resources, the emperors
exhausted their ingenuity in finding allies and inventing
brilliant schemes for reviving the Arelate, which invariably
came to nothing. Barbarossa won the hand of the heiress of the
county of Burgundy, and sought to put in place of the local
dynasties princes on whom he could rely, like Berthold of
Zäringen, whose father had received in 1127 from Conrad III.
the high-sounding but meaningless title of Hector of the
Burgundies. But his quarrel with the church soon set the
clergy against Frederick, and, led by the Carthusian and
Cistercian orders, the Churchmen of the Arelate began to look
upon the orthodox king of the French as their truest protector
from a schismatic emperor. But the French kings of the period
saw in the power of Henry of Anjou [Henry II., of England--see
ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189] a more real and pressing danger than
the Empire of the Hohenstaufen. The result was an alliance
between Philip Augustus and his successors and the Swabian
emperors, which gave Frederick and his successors a new term
in which they could strive to win back a real hold over
Burgundy. Frederick II. never lost sight of this object. His
investiture of the great feudal lord William of Baux with the
kingdom of Arles in 1215; his long struggle with the wealthy
merchant city of Marseilles; his alliance with Raymond of
Toulouse and the heretical elements in Provence against the
Pope and the French; his efforts to lead an army against
Innocent IV. at Lyons, were among the chief phases of his
constant efforts to make the Imperial influence really felt in
the valley of the Rhone. But he had so little success that the
French crusaders against the Albigenses waged open war within
its limits, and destroyed the heretic city of Avignon [see
ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229], while Innocent in his exile
could find no surer protection against the emperor than in the
Imperial city of Lyons. After Frederick's death the policy of
St. Louis of France was a complete triumph. His brother,
Charles of Anjou, established himself in Provence, though in
later times the Angevin lords of Provence and Naples became so
strong that their local interests made them enemies rather
than friends of the extension of French power on their
borders. The subsequent efforts of the emperors were the
merest shams and unrealities. Rudolf of Hapsburg acquiesced
without a murmur in the progress of Philip the Fair, who made
himself master of Lyons, and secured the Free County of
Burgundy for his son [see FRANCHE-COMTÉ]. . . . The residence
of the Popes at Avignon was a further help to the French
advance. ... Weak as were the early Valois kings, they were
strong enough to push still further the advantage won by their
greater predecessors. The rivalry of the leading states of the
Rhone valley, Savoy and Dauphiny, facilitated their task.
Philip VI. aspired to take Vienne as Philip IV. had obtained
Lyons. The Dauphin, Humbert II., struggled in vain against
him, and at last accepted the inevitable by ceding to the
French king the succession to all his rights in Dauphiny,
henceforth to become the appanage of the eldest sons of the
French kings. At last, Charles of Luxemburg, in 1378, gave the
French aggressions a legal basis by conferring the Vicariat of
Arles on the Dauphin Charles, subsequently the mad Charles VI.
of France. From this grant Savoy only was excepted. Henceforth
the power of France in the Rhone valley became so great that
it soon became the fashion to despise and ignore the
theoretical claims of the Empire."
The Athenæum, Oct. 3, 1891, reviewing "Le Royaume
d'Arles et de Vienne," par Paul Fournier.