History for ready reference, Volume 3, Greece to Nibelungen

by J. N. Larned

king would be Judah itself. The infatuated Ahaz would not
listen. He 'sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of
Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy son: come up and
save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the
hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me.'" The
king of Assyria responded to the call (B. C. 734). He defeated
Rezon in battle, laid siege to Damascus, swept the tribes east
of the Jordan into captivity, overran the territory of Israel,
captured Samaria and put to death Pekah the king. In place of
Pekah he set up a vassal-king Hoshea. Six years later,
Tiglath-pileser having died, and the Assyrian throne having
been seized by another strong soldier, Shalmaneser IV., Hoshea
attempted a revolt, looking to Egypt for help. But before
Sabako king of Egypt could move to his assistance, "Hoshea was
defeated by the Assyrian king or his satraps, and thrown into
chains. The ruling classes of Samaria, however, still held
out. An Assyrian army, accordingly, once more devastated the
land of Israel, and laid siege to the capital. For three years
Samaria remained untaken. Another revolution had meanwhile
broken out in Assyria; Shalmaneser had died or been put to
death, and a fresh military adventurer had seized the crown,
taking the name of Sargon, after a famous monarch of ancient
Babylonia. Sargon had hardly established himself upon the
throne when Samaria fell (B. C. 722). … He contented himself
with transporting only 27,280 of its inhabitants into
captivity, only the upper classes, in fact, who were
implicated in the revolt of Hoshea. An Assyrian satrap, or
governor, was appointed over Samaria, while the bulk of the
population was allowed to remain peaceably in their old
homes."
A. H. Sayce,
Life and Times of Isaiah,
chapter 3.
"Much light is thrown upon the conditions of the national
religion then and upon its subsequent development by the
single fact that the exiled Israelites were absorbed by the
surrounding heathenism without leaving a trace behind them,
while the population of Judah, who had the benefit of a
hundred years of respite, held their faith fast throughout the
period of the Babylonian exile, and by means of it were able
to maintain their own individuality afterwards in all the
circumstances that arose. The fact that the fall of Samaria
did not hinder but helped the religion of Jehovah is entirely
due to the prophets."
J. Wellhausen,
Sketch of the History of Israel and Judah,
chapter 6.
"The first generation of the exiles lived to see the fall of
their conquerors. … After this it is difficult to discover
any distinct trace of the northern tribes. Some returned with
their countrymen of the southern kingdom. … The immense
Jewish population which made Babylonia a second Palestine was
in part derived from them; and the Jewish customs that have
been discovered in the Nestorian Christians, with the
traditions of the sect itself, may indicate at any rate a
mixture of Jewish descent. That they [the 'lost Ten Tribes']
are concealed in some unknown region of the earth, is a fable
with no foundation either in history or prophecy."
Dean Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 34 (volume 2).
See, also, JERUSALEM.
{1905}
JEWS: B. C. 724-604.
The kingdom of Judah to the end of the Egyptian domination.
Three years before Sargon's destruction of Samaria, "Hezekiah
had succeeded his father Ahaz upon the throne of Jerusalem.
… Judah was tributary to Assyria, and owed to Assyria its
deliverance from a great danger. But the deliverer and his
designs were extremely dangerous, and made Judah apprehensive
of being swallowed up presently, when its turn came. The
neighbouring countries,—Phœnicia on the north, Moab, Ammon,
and the Arabian nations on the east, Philistia on the west,
Egypt and Ethiopia on the south,—shared Judah's
apprehensions. There were risings, and they were sternly
quelled; Judah, however, remained tranquil. But the scheme of
an anti-Assyrian alliance was gradually becoming popular.
Egypt was the great pillar of hope. By its size, wealth,
resources, pretensions, and fame, Egypt seemed a possible
rival to Assyria. Time went on. Sargon was murdered in 705;
Sennacherib succeeded him. Then on all sides there was an
explosion of revolts against the Assyrian rule. The first
years of Sennacherib's reign were spent by him in quelling a
formidable rising of Merodach Baladan, king of Babylon. The
court and ministers of Hezekiah seized this opportunity for
detaching their master from Assyria, for joining in the
movement of the insurgent states of Palestine and its borders,
and for allying themselves with Egypt. … In the year 701,
Sennacherib, victorious in Babylonia, marched upon Palestine."
M. Arnold,
Isaiah of Jerusalem,
introduction.
Sennacherib advanced along the Phœnician coast. "Having
captured Ascalon, he next laid siege to Ekron, which, after
the Egyptian army sent to its relief had been defeated at
Eltekeh, fell into the enemy's hand, and was severely dealt
with. Simultaneously various fortresses of Judah were
occupied, and the level country was devastated (Isaiah i.).
The consequence was that Hezekiah, in a state of panic,
offered to the Assyrians his submission, which was accepted on
payment of a heavy penalty, he being permitted, however, to
retain possession of Jerusalem. He seemed to have got cheaply
off from the unequal contest. The way being thus cleared,
Sennacherib pressed on southwards, for the Egyptians were
collecting their forces against him. The nearer he came to the
enemy the more undesirable did he find it that he should leave
in his rear so important a fortress as Jerusalem in the hands
of a doubtful vassal. Notwithstanding the recently ratified
treaty, therefore, he demanded the surrender of the city,
believing that a policy of intimidation would be enough to
secure it from Hezekiah. But there was another personality in
Jerusalem of whom his plans had taken no account. Isaiah had
indeed regarded the revolt from Assyria as a rebellion against
Jehovah Himself, and therefore as a perfectly hopeless
undertaking, which could only result in the utmost humiliation
and sternest chastisement for Judah. But much more distinctly
than Amos and Hosea before him did he hold firm as an article
of faith the conviction that the kingdom would not be utterly
annihilated; all his speeches of solemn warning closed with
the announcement that a remnant should return and form the
kernel of a new commonwealth to be fashioned after Jehovah's
own heart. … Over against the vain confidence of the
multitude Isaiah had hitherto brought into prominence the
darker obverse of his religious belief, but now he confronted
their present depression with its bright reverse;
faintheartedness was still more alien to his nature than
temerity. In the name of Jehovah he bade King Hezekiah be of
good courage, and urged that he should by no means surrender.
The Assyrians would not be able to take the city, not even to
shoot an arrow into it, nor to bring up their siege train
against it. 'I know thy sitting, thy going, and thy standing,'
is Jehovah's language to the Assyrian, 'and also thy rage
against Me. And I will put my ring in thy nose, and my bridle
in thy lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by which
thou camest.' And thus it proved in the issue. By a still
unexplained catastrophe, the main army of Sennacherib was
annihilated on the frontier between Egypt and Palestine, and
Jerusalem thereby freed from all danger. The Assyrian king had
to save himself by a hurried retreat to Nineveh; Isaiah was
triumphant. A more magnificent close of a period of
influential public life can hardly be imagined."
J. Wellhausen,
Sketch of the History of Israel and Judah,
chapter 7.
"We possess in duplicate, on the Taylor Cylinder, found at
Nineveh in 1830, and now in the British Museum, and on the
Bull-inscription of Kouyunjik, Sennacherib's own account of
the stages of his campaign. Sidon and the cities of Phœnicia
were the first to be attacked; and, after reducing these, and
receiving homage from several of the kings of the countries
bordering on Palestine, who apparently were not this time
implicated in the plan of revolt, Sennacherib started
southwards, aiming to recover similarly Ashkelon, Ekron, and
Jerusalem. In Ashkelon he deprived Zedek of his crown, which
he bestowed upon Sarludari, the son of a former king,
doubtless on the ground that he was friendly to Assyrian
interests: at the same time four subject-cities belonging to
Zedek, Beth-dagon, Joppa, Bene-Barak, and Azuru were captured
and plundered. Sennacherib next proceeds to deal with Ekron.
The people of Ekron, in order to carry through their plan for
the recovery of independence without hindrance, had deposed
their king Padi, who remained loyal to Assyria, and sent him
bound in chains to Hezekiah. Upon news of the approach of the
Assyrians, they had summoned the Egyptians to their aid; they
arrive now 'with forces innumerable;' the encounter takes
place at Altaku (probably not far from Ekron); victory
declares for the Assyrian; and the Egyptians retire without
effecting the desired relief. After this Sennacherib soon
reduces Ekron; he obtains, moreover, the surrender of Padi
from Jerusalem, and restores him to his throne. Now follows
the account of the aggressive measures adopted by him against
Judah and Jerusalem. 'And Hezekiah of Judah, who had not
submitted to my yoke, forty-six of his strong cities,
fortresses and smaller towns round about their border without
number, with laying low of the walls, and with open (?)
attack, with battle … of feet, … hewing about and
trampling down (?), I besieged, I took 200,150 people, small
and great, male and female, horses, mules,' asses, camels,
oxen, and sheep without number, from the midst of them I
brought out, and I counted them as spoil.
{1906}
Himself, as a bird in a cage, in the midst of Jerusalem, his
royal city, I shut up. Siege-works against him I erected, and
the exit of the great gate of his city I blocked up. His
cities which I had plundered, from his domain I cut off; and
to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, to Padi, king of Ekron, and to
Zilbel, king of Gaza, I gave them; I diminished his territory.
To the former payment of their yearly tribute, the tribute of
subjection to my sovereignty I added; I laid it upon them.
Himself, Hezekiah, the terror of the splendour of my
sovereignty overwhelmed: the Arabians and his dependents, whom
he had introduced, for the defence of Jerusalem, his royal
city, and to whom he had granted pay, together with 30 talents
of gold, 800 talents of silver, bullion (?) … precious (?)
stones of large size, couches of ivory, lofty thrones of
ivory, elephant-skins, ivory, … wood, … woods of every
kind, an abundant treasure, and in addition, his daughters,
the women of his palace, his male and female
harem(?)-attendants unto Nineveh, my royal city, he caused to
be brought after me. For the payment of tribute, and the
rendering of homage: he sent his envoy.' Here the account on
the Inscription closes, the lines which follow relating to the
campaign of the subsequent year."
S. R. Driver,
Isaiah: His Life and Times,
chapter 7.
"Between the retreat of Sennacherib's army and the capture of
the capital by Nebuchadrezzar there was an interval of little
more than a century, yet, meanwhile, upon the basis of the
prophetical teaching, the foundations of Judaism were laid.
… But though Sennacherib had retreated from Palestine, Judah
still remained the vassal of Assyria. The empire of Assyria
was scarcely affected by the event which was to change the
face of the world, and for more than half-a-century its power
was undiminished and supreme. Yet, as regards the internal
condition of Judah, the great deliverance was the occasion of
a reform which at first may well have made Isaiah's heart beat
high. … Influential as he was at the court and with the
king, and with reputation enormously enhanced by the
fulfilment of his promise of deliverance, he probably urged
and prompted Hezekiah to the execution of a religious reform.
The meagre verse in the Book of Kings which describes this
reform is both inaccurate and misplaced. There is no hint in
the authentic writings of Isaiah or Micah that any religious
innovations had been attempted before the Assyrian war. It was
the startling issue of Sennacherib's invasion which afforded
the opportunity and suggested the idea. Moreover, wider
changes are attributed to Hezekiah than he can actually have
effected. … The residuum of fact contained in the 18th
chapter of the Second Book of Kings must be probably limited
to the destruction of the Nehushtan, or brazen serpent, that
mysterious image in which the contemporaries of Hezekiah,
whatever may have been its original signification, doubtless
recognized a symbol of Yahveh. Yet indirect evidence would
incline us to believe that Hezekiah's reform involved more
than the annihilation of a single idol; it is more probably to
be regarded as an attempt at a general abolition of images, as
well as a suppression of the new Assyrian star-worship and of
the 'Moloch' sacrifices which had been introduced into Judah
in the reign of Ahaz. Whether this material iconoclasm
betokened or generated any wide moral reformation is more than
doubtful. … Hezekiah's reign extended for about fourteen
years after the deliverance of Jerusalem in 701. To the early
part of this, its second division, the religious reformation
must be assigned. A successful campaign against the
Philistines, alluded to in the Book of Kings, probably fell
within the same period. Beyond this, we know nothing, though
we would gladly know much, of these fourteen concluding years
of an eventful reign. In 686 Hezekiah died, and was succeeded
by his son Manasseh, who occupied the throne for forty-five
years (686-641). The Book of Kings does not record a single
external incident throughout his long reign. It must have been
a time of profound peace and of comparative prosperity.
Manasseh remained the vassal of Assyria, and the Assyrian
inscriptions speak of him as paying tribute to the two kings,
Esarhaddon (681-669), Sennacherib's successor, and Asurbanipal
(669-626), till whose death the supremacy of Assyria in
Palestine was wholly undisputed. Uneventful as Manasseh's
reign was in foreign politics, it was all the more important
in its internal and religious history. In it, and in the short
reign of Amon, who maintained the policy of his father, there
set in a period of strong religious reaction, extending over
nearly half-a-century (686-638). Manasseh is singled out by
the historian for special and repeated reprobation. In the
eyes of the exilic redactor, his iniquities were the immediate
cause of the destruction of the national life. Not even
Josiah's reformation could turn Yahveh 'from the fierceness of
his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against
Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had
provoked him withal.' Jeremiah had said the same. Exile and
dispersion are to come 'because of Manasseh, the son of
Hezekiah, king of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem.'
… What were the sins of Manasseh? It has already been
indicated that the Assyrians made their influence felt, not
only in politics, but also in religion. It was the old
Babylonian worship of the luminaries of heaven which was
introduced into Judah in the eighth century, and which, after
receiving a short check during the reign of Hezekiah, became
very widely prevalent under his son. … There are many tokens
in the literature of the seventh century that the idolatrous
reaction of Manasseh penetrated deep, making many converts.
… Manasseh would apparently brook no opposition to the
idolatrous proclivities of his court; he met the indignation
of Isaiah's disciples and of the prophetical party by open and
relentless persecution. … The older historian of the Book of
Kings speaks of 'Manasseh shedding innocent blood very much,
till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another.' This
innocent blood must have mainly flowed from those who opposed
his idolatrous tendencies. … From the accession of Manasseh
to the death of Amon (686-638), a period of forty-eight years,
this internal conflict continued; and in it, as always, the
blood of martyrs was the seed of the Church. In 638, Amon was
succeeded by his son Josiah; then only eight years old.
{1907}
It is possible that his accession brought about some
amelioration in the condition of the prophetical party, and
that active persecution ceased. But the syncretistic and
idolatrous worship was still maintained for another eighteen
years, though those years are passed over without any notice
in the Book of Kings. They were, however, years of great
importance in the history of Asia, for they witnessed the
break-up of the Assyrian empire, and the inroads of the
Scythians. The collapse of Assyria followed hard upon the
death of Asurbanipal in 626: Babylon revolted, the northern
and north-western provinces of the empire fell into the hands
of the Medes, and the authority of Assyria over the vassal
kingdoms of the west was gradually weakened."
C. G. Montefiore,
Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion,
as illustrated by the Religion of the ancient Hebrews,
(Hibbert Lectures, 1892), lecture 4.
"The Assyrian empire was much weakened and the king could not
think of maintaining his power in the more distant provinces.
… In the year 610 B. C., Nineveh was again besieged, this
time by the Medes and Babylonians in league together. In the
same year Psammetichus, king of Egypt, died and was succeeded
by his son Necho. If Psammetichus had already tried to enlarge
his kingdom at the expense of Assyria, Necho was not the man
to miss the golden opportunity that now presented itself: he
proposed to seize Syria and Palestine, the Assyrian provinces
that bordered on his own kingdom, and thus to obtain his share
of the spoil, even if he did not help to bring down the giant.
By the second year after his accession to the throne he was on
the march to Syria with a large army. Probably it was
transported by sea and landed at Acco, on the Mediterranean,
whence it was to proceed overland. But in carrying out this
plan he encountered an unexpected obstacle: Josiah went to
meet him with an army and attempted to prevent his march to
Syria. … Josiah must have firmly believed that Jahveh would
fight for his people and defeat the Egyptian ruler. From what
Jeremiah tells us of the attitude of the prophets in the
reigns of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, we must infer that many of
them strengthened the king in his intention not to endure an
encroachment such as that of the Pharaoh. The Chronicler
relates that Necho himself endeavored to dissuade Josiah from
the unequal contest. But [uselessly]. … The decisive battle
was fought in the valley of Megiddo: Judah was defeated;
Josiah perished. … After the victory in the valley of
Megiddo and the death of Josiah, Necho was master of the
kingdom of Judah. Before he arrived there, 'the people of the
land' made Jehoahaz, a younger son of Josiah, king, presumably
because he was more attached than his elder brother to his
father's policy. At all events, Necho hastened to depose him
and send him to Egypt. He was superseded by Eliakim,
henceforward called Jehoiakim. At first Jehoiakim was a vassal
of Egypt, and it does not appear that he made any attempt to
escape from this servitude. But it was not long before events
occurred elsewhere in Asia that entirely changed his position.
Nineveh had fallen; the Medes and the Chaldeans or Babylonians
now ruled over the former territory of the Assyrians; Syria
and Palestine fell to the share of the Babylonians. Of course,
the Egyptians were not inclined to let them have undisputed
possession. A battle was fought at Carchemish (Circesium), on
the Euphrates, between the armies of Necho and Nebuchadnezzar,
who then commanded in the name of his father, Nabopolassar,
but very shortly afterwards succeeded him. The Egyptians
sustained a crushing defeat (604 B. C). This decided the fate
of Western Asia, including Judæa."
A. Kuenen,
The Religion of Israel,
chapter 6 (volume 2).
JEWS: B. C. 604-536.
Fall of the kingdom of Judah.
The Babylonian captivity.
"In the fourth year of Jehoiakim (B. C. 604) the mightiest
monarch who had wielded the Assyrian power, Nebuchadnezzar,
was associated in the empire with his father, and assumed the
command of the armies of Assyria. Babylon now takes the place
of Nineveh as the capital of the Assyrian empire. …
Vassalage to the dominion of Egypt or of Babylon is now the
ignominious doom of the king of Judah. … Nebuchadnezzar,
having retaken Carchemish (B. C. 601), passed the Euphrates,
and rapidly overran the whole of Syria and Palestine.
Jerusalem made little resistance. The king was put in chains
to be carried as a prisoner to Babylon. On his submission, he
was reinstated on the throne; but the Temple was plundered of
many of its treasures, and a number of well-born youths, among
whom were Daniel, and three others, best known by their
Persian names, Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego. From this date
commence the seventy years of the Captivity. Jehoiakim had
learned neither wisdom nor moderation from his misfortunes.
Three years after, he attempted to throw off the yoke of
Chaldea. … At length this weak and cruel king was slain (B.
C. 598). … Jehoiachin (Jeconias or Coniah), his son, had
scarcely mounted the throne, when Nebuchadnezzar himself
appeared at the gates of Jerusalem. The city surrendered at
discretion. The king and all the royal family, the remaining
treasures of the Temple, the strength of the army and the
nobility, and all the more useful artisans, were carried away
to Babylon. Over this wreck of a kingdom, Zedekiah
(Mattaniah), the younger son of Josiah, was permitted to enjoy
an inglorious and precarious sovereignty of eleven years,
during which he abused his powers, even worse than his
imbecile predecessors. In his ninth year, notwithstanding the
remonstrances of the wise Jeremiah, he endeavoured to assert
his independence; and Jerusalem, though besieged by
Nebuchadnezzar in person, now made some resistance. … At
length, in the city, famine reduced the fatal obstinacy of
despair. Jerusalem opened its gates to the irresistible
conqueror. The king, in an attempt to break through the
besieging forces, or meditating flight towards his ally, the
king of Ammon, was seized on the plain of Jericho. His
children were slain before his face, his eyes put out, and
thus the last king of the royal house of David, blind and
childless, was led away into a foreign prison. The capture of
Jerusalem took place on the ninth day of the fourth month: on
the seventh day of the fifth month (two days on which Hebrew
devotion still commemorates the desolation of the city by
solemn fast and humiliation) the relentless Nebuzaradan
executed the orders of his master by levelling the city, the
palaces, and the Temple, in one common ruin. The few remaining
treasures, particularly the two brazen pillars which stood
before the Temple, were sent to Babylon; the chief priests
were put to death, the rest carried into captivity. …
{1908}
The miserable remnant of the people were placed under the
command of Gedaliah, as a pasha of the great Assyrian monarch;
the seat of government was fixed at Mizpeh. … Nebuzaradan
(the general of Nebuchadnezzar) only left, according to the
strong language of the Second Book of Kings, xxv. 12, 'of the
poor of the land, to be vine-dressers and husbandmen.' … In
general it seems that the Jewish exiles [in Babylonia] were
allowed to dwell together in considerable bodies, not sold as
household or personal or prædial slaves, at least not those of
the better order of whom the Captivity chiefly consisted. They
were colonists rather than captives, and became by degrees
possessed of considerable property. … They had free
enjoyment of their religion, such at least as adhered
faithfully to their belief in Jehovah. We hear of no special
and general religious persecution. The first deportation of
chosen beautiful youths, after the earlier defeat of
Jehoiakim, for hostages, or as a kind of court-pages, was not
numerous. The second transportation swept away the king, his
wife, all the officers and attendants of his court, 7,000 of
the best of the army, 1,000 picked artisans, armourers, and
others, amounting to 10,023 men. The last was more general: it
comprehended the mass of the people, according to some
calculations towards 300,000 or 400,000 souls."
H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
books 8-9, with foot-note (volume 1).
The inhabitants left behind in Judæa "formed but a pitiful
remnant of the former kingdom of Judah. Part of them had grown
wild and led the lives of freebooters. Others busied
themselves with agriculture, but they had much to suffer from
the bands of Chaldean soldiers that roved about the land, and
from the neighbouring tribes, who took advantage of Israel's
abasement to extend their territories. … We do not know with
certainty the number of the exiles carried off by
Nebuchadnezzar: the returns given in the Old Testament are
evidently incomplete. But that their number was very
considerable, can be gathered from the number of those who
afterwards went back. For their intrinsic worth, even more
than for their numerical strength, these exiles had a right to
be regarded as the real representatives of the kingdom of
Judah and thus of all Israel. … It was … the kernel of the
nation that was brought to Babylonia. Our information as to
the social condition of the exiles is very defective. Even to
the question, where they had to settle, we can only return an
imperfect answer. We meet with a colony of exiles, companions
of Jeconiah, at Tel-abib, in the neighbourhood of the river
Chebar, usually supposed to be the Chaboras, which runs into
the Euphrates not far from Circesium, but considered by others
to be a smaller river, nearer to Babylon. It lay in the nature
of the case, that the second and third company of captives
received another destination. Even had it been possible,
prudence would have opposed their settling in the immediate
vicinity of their predecessors. We are not surprised therefore
that Ezekiel, who lived at Tel-abib, does not mention their
arrival there. Where they did go we are not told. The
historian says 'to Babylon,' to which place, according to him,
the first exiles (597 B. C.) were also brought; probably he
does not, in either passage, mean only the capital of the
Chaldean kingdom, but rather the province of that name to
which the city of course belonged. … Nebuchadnezzar's
purpose, the prevention of fresh disturbances, having been
attained by their removal from Judæa, he could now leave them
to develop their resources. It was even for the interest of
the districts in which they settled, that their development
should not be obstructed. Many unnecessary and troublesome
conflicts were avoided and the best provision was made for the
maintenance of order, by leaving them free, within certain
limits, to regulate their own affairs. So the elders of the
families and tribes remained in possession of the authority
which they had formerly exercised."
A. Kuenen,
The Religion of Israel,
chapter 7 (volume 2).
"About the middle of the sixth century before Christ, Cyrus,
King of Elam, began the career of conquest which left him
master of Western Asia. Greek writers of history have done
full justice to the character of this extraordinary man, but
what they tell of his origin, his early adventures and rise to
power, is for the most part mere fable. … Within recent
years a new light has been thrown on one of the dimmest
figures of the old world by the discovery of contemporary
documents, in which the Conqueror of Babylon himself records
his victories and the policy of his reign. … It appears from
the Inscriptions that the founder of the Persian Empire was by
no means the parvenu prince described by Herodotus. Cyrus was
a king's son, and in early youth, by legitimate succession,
himself became a king. From Susa (Shushan) on the Choaspes,
his capital city, he ruled over the fertile and populous
region lying eastward of the Lower Tigris which bore the name
of Elam or Susiana. This realm was one of the most ancient in
Western Asia. … Nabonidus became king of Babylon in the year
555 B. C. He had raised himself to the throne by conspiracy
and murder, and his position at first was insecure. The
eastern provinces, Syria and Phœnicia, rose in revolt against
the usurper, while the Medes on the north began a harassing
warfare and threatened an invasion of Babylonia. This latter
danger was averted for the time by an unlooked-for
deliverance. In the sixth year of Nabonidus (550 B. C.) Cyrus
led his army against Astyages, the Median king. The
discontented soldiery of Astyages mutinied on the eve of
battle, seized the person of their sovereign, and delivered
him up to the enemy. … This bloodless victory added Media to
the dominions of Cyrus, gave him Ecbatana as a second capital
and place of arms, and more than doubled his military
strength. … The real aim of Cyrus was the overthrow of
Babylon, and the construction of a new and still wider empire
on the ruins of the old. … Within the two years following
his conquest of the Medes he had extended his sway over the
kindred race of the Persians, from which he himself had
sprung. The wild tribes of Iran had long looked greedily on
the rich Chaldæan plains and cities, and only waited a leader
before swooping down like ravenous birds on their prey. This
leader appeared in Cyrus. … Forty years had passed since the
destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of the great mass
of the Jewish people to Babylonia (588 B. C.). During this
period, under Nebuchadnezzar and his immediate successors on
the throne, the exiles had lived in peace, following without
interference their own customs, religious and social. …
Nothing hindered them from leading a quiet and comfortable
life among the Chaldæans, if only they were content to break
with their past and give up hope for the future.
{1909}
But this was impossible for all true Israelites. They could
not forget what they had been, or reconcile themselves to be
what they now were. They had the means of livelihood in
abundance, but to them their drink was as vinegar, their meat
as gall. … The home-sickness of the people finds manifold
expression in the literature of the Exile. … Now, as at
every crisis in the national history, the Prophets stood
forth, the true leaders of Israel. They kept the people
constantly in mind of their high destinies, and comforted and
encouraged them in their darkest hours. … Among the Jewish
exiles, enlightened by the prophetic word, the name Koresh
passed from lip to lip, and the movements of this new
Conqueror were followed with straining eyes. … In the month
Nisan (March) of the year 547 B. C., the ninth year of
Nabonidus, Cyrus crossed the Tigris at the fords of Arbela,
eastward of the modern Mosul, and began his first invasion of
Babylonia. … Meanwhile the fainéant king Nabonidus lingered
in his palace near Babylon, leaving the defence of the empire
to his eldest son, the Prince Royal Belshazzar. Whether
worsted in battle or, as is more likely, baffled by the
difficulties in the way of an invader—the country seamed
with water-courses, the numerous fortified towns, the Median
Wall—Cyrus was forced to retreat. … In the seventeenth
year of Nabonidus (539 B. C.) the King of Elam once more took
the field against Babylon. This time the attack was made from
the southeast. An opportune revolt of the southern provinces,
probably fomented by Cyrus himself, opened the way for him
into the heart of the land. … On all sides the disaffected
subjects of Nabonidus went over to the invader, who passed on
at the head of his 'vast army, innumerable, like the waters of
a river,' without meeting any serious resistance. The last
hope of Nabonidus rested on his Army of the North. In the
month Tammuz (June) a pitched battle was fought near Routou, a
town in Accad, and ended in the defeat of the Babylonians. A
revolution followed at once. … Some days later the
victorious army, under a lieutenant of the King, appeared
before the walls of Babylon. The collapse of all authority
made useless defences which were the wonder of the world;
friendly hands threw open the brazen gates, and without a
struggle the great city fell. … Four months later Cyrus
entered Babylon in triumph. … The hitherto accepted opinion
that Cyrus was an Aryan monotheist, a worshipper of Ormazd,
and therefore so far in religious sympathy with the Jews, is
seriously shaken if not overthrown by the Inscriptions which
record his Babylonian conquest. Even if allowance be made for
the fact that these are state documents, and reveal only what
the monarch professed, not necessarily what he believed, there
still remains the strong probability that Cyrus was not
Zoroastrian in creed, but polytheist like his people of Elam.
The Cyrus of the Inscriptions is either a fanatical idolater
or simply an opportunist in matters of religion. The latter
alternative is the more probable."
P. H. Hunter,
After the Exile,
part 1, chapters 1-2.
JEWS: B. C. 537.
The return from Babylon.
"The fall of the metropolis had decided the fortune of the
Babylonian kingdom, and the provinces. The most important of
these was Syria, with the great trading places of the
Phenicians on the Mediterranean. … The hopes of the Jews
were at last fulfilled. The fall of Babylon had avenged the
fall of Jerusalem, and the subjugation of Syria to the armies
of Babylon opened the way for their return. Cyrus did not
belie the confidence which the Jews had so eagerly offered
him; without hesitation he gave the exiles permission to
return and erect again their shrine at Jerusalem. The return
of the captives and the foundation of a new state of the Jews
was very much to his interest; it might contribute to support
his empire in Syria. He did not merely count on the gratitude
of the returning exiles, but as any revival of the Babylonian
kingdom, or rebellion of the Syrians against the Persian
empire, imperilled the existence of this community, which had
not only to be established anew, but would never be very
strong, it must necessarily oppose any such attempts.
Forty-nine years—seven Sabbatical years, instead of the ten
announced by Jeremiah—had passed since the destruction of
Jerusalem, and more than sixty since Jeremiah had first
announced the seventy years of servitude to Babylon. Cyrus
commissioned Zerubbabel, the son of Salathiel, a grandson of
Jechoniah, the king who had been carried away captive, and
therefore a scion of the ancient royal race, and a descendant
of David, to be the leader of the returning exiles, to
establish them in their abode, and be the head of the
community; he bade his treasurer Mithridates give out to him
the sacred vessels, which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away as
trophies to Babylon, and placed in the temple of Bel; there
are said to have been more than 5,000 utensils of gold and
silver, baskets, goblets, cups, knives, etc. But all the Jews
in Babylon did not avail themselves of the permission. Like
the Israelites deported by Sargon into Media and Assyria some
180 years previously, many of the Jews brought to Mesopotamia
and Babylonia at the time of Jechoniah and Zedekiah, had found
there a new home, which they preferred to the land of their
fathers. But the priests (to the number of more than 3,000),
many of the families of the heads of the tribes, all who cared
for the sanctuary and the old country, all in whom Jehovah
'awoke the spirit,' as the Book of Ezra says, began the march
over the Euphrates. With Zerubbabel was Joshua, the high
priest, the most distinguished among all the Jews, a grandson
of the high priest, Zeraiah, whom Nebuchadnezzar had executed
after the capture of Jerusalem. … It was a considerable
multitude which left the land 'beyond the stream,' the waters
of Babylon, to sit once more under the fig-tree in their
ancient home, and build up the city of David and the temple of
Jehovah from their ruins; 42,360 freemen, with 7,337 Hebrew
men-servants and maid-servants; their goods were carried by
435 camels, 736 horses, 250 mules, and 6,720 asses (537 B.
C.). The exodus of the Jews from Babylon is accompanied by a
prophet with cries of joy, and announcements filled with the
wildest hopes. … 'Go forth from Babylon,' he cries; 'fly
from the land of the Chaldæans! Proclaim it with shouts of
joy, tell it to the end of the earth and say: "Jehovah hath
redeemed his servant Jacob."'
{1910}
'How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that
bringeth glad tidings, that publisheth peace, that saith unto
Zion, Thy God reigneth. Up, up, go forth, touch no unclean
person; go forth from among them. Cleanse yourselves, ye that
bear Jehovah's vessels. Ye shall go forth in joy, and be led
in peace; the mountains and the hills shall break forth before
you into singing, and all the trees shall clap their hands.
Jehovah goes before you, and the God of Israel brings up the
rear. … Jehovah calls thee as an outcast sorrowful woman,
and thy God speaks to thee as to a bride who has been put
away; thy ruins, and deserts, and wasted land, which was
destroyed from generation to generation—thy people build up
the ruins, and renew the ancient cities. Behold, I will make
thy desert like Eden, and thy wilderness like the garden of
the Lord; I will lay thy stones with bright lead, and thy
foundations with sapphires, and make thy towers of rubies and
thy gates of carbuncles. Joy and delight is in them,
thanksgiving and the sound of strings. The wealth of the sea
shall come to thee, and the treasures of the nations shall be
thine; like a stream will I bring salvation upon Israel, and
the treasures of the nations like an overflowing river. Thy
sons hasten onward; those that laid thee waste go forth from
thee. Lift up thine eyes and see; thy sons come from far, and
I will gather them to those that are gathered together. The
islands and the ships of Tarshish wait to bring thy children
from afar, their gold and their silver with them. The land
will be too narrow for the inhabitants; widen the place for
thy tent, let the carpets of thy habitation be spread—delay
not. Draw out the rope; to the right and to the left must thou
be widened. I will set up my banner for the nations, that they
bring thy sons in their arm, and thy daughters shall be
carried on the shoulders. Kings shall be thy guardians, and
queens thy nursing-mothers; I will bow them to the earth
before thee, and they shall lick the dust of thy feet, and
thou shalt know that I am Jehovah, and they who wait patiently
for me shall not be put to shame.' Such expectations and hopes
were far from being realised. The Edomites had, in the
mean-time, extended their borders and obtained possession of
the South of Judah, but the land immediately round Jerusalem
was free and no doubt almost depopulated. As the returning
exiles contented themselves with the settlement at Jerusalem,
the towns to the North, Anathoth, Gebah, Michmash,
Kirjath-Jearim, and some others—only Bethlehem is mentioned
to the South—they found nothing to impede them. Their first
care was the restoration of the worship, according to the law
and the custom of their fathers. … Then voluntary gifts were
collected from all for the rebuilding of the temple;
contributions even came in from those who had remained in
Babylonia, so that 70,000 pieces of gold and 5,000 mimæ of
silver are said to have been amassed. Tyrian masons were
hired, and agreements made with Tyrian carpenters, to fell
cedars in Lebanon, and bring them to Joppa, for which Cyrus
had given his permission. The foundation of the temple was
laid in the second year of the return (536 B. C.). … The
fortunate beginning of the restoration of the city and temple
soon met with difficulties. The people of Samaria, who were a
mixture of the remnant of the Israelites and the strangers
whom Sargon had brought there after the capture of Samaria,
… and Esarhaddon at a later date, … came to meet the
exiles in a friendly spirit, and offered them assistance, from
which we must conclude that in spite of the foreign admixture
the Israelitish blood and the worship of Jehovah were
preponderant in Samaria. The new temple would thus have been
the common sanctuary of the united people of Israel. But the
'sons of captivity' were too proud of the sorrows which they
had undergone, and the fidelity which they had preserved to
Jehovah, and their pure descent, to accept this offer. Hence
the old quarrel between Israel and Judah broke out anew, and
the exiles soon felt the result. After their repulse the
Samaritans set themselves to hinder the building by force;
'they terrified the exiles that they built no more, and hired
counsellors to make the attempt vain during the
whole of the remainder of the reign of Cyrus.'"
M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 8, chapter 8 (volume 6).
The duration of the Captivity, strictly speaking, "was only
forty-seven years, if we reckon by the Canon of Ptolemy, from
the 19th year of Nabuchodrozzor to the first of Cyrus; or,
better, forty-nine years, if we add on, as we probably ought
to do, the two years' reign of the Median king whom Cyrus set
on the throne of Babylon."
H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 5, introduction.
"The decree of Cyrus, at the close of the captivity, extended
only to the rebuilding of the Temple. 'Thus saith Cyrus, king
of Persia, The Lord God of heaven … hath charged me to build
him an house at Jerusalem.' And under this decree Jeshua and
Zerubbabel 'builded the altar of the God of Israel. … But
the foundation of the Temple of the Lord was not yet laid.'
Afterwards they 'laid the foundation of the Temple of the
Lord,' including, apparently, the outer wall, for their
enemies made a representation to the king of Persia that the
Jews were rebuilding the walls of their city: 'The Jews which
came up from thee to us are … building the rebellious and
the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined
the foundations.' And as the wall of the Temple, which was
about twelve feet thick, gave a colour to the charge, a decree
was issued by Artaxerxes to prohibit the further prosecution
of the work. 'Then ceased the work of the house of God, which
is at Jerusalem.' On the accession of Darius to the throne of
Persia, Jeshua and Zerubbabel recommenced the restoration of
the Temple, including the wall of the Outer Temple, for they
'began to build the house of God,' when their enemies again
stepped forward, saying, 'Who hath commanded you to build this
house, and to make up this wall?' And on a renewed complaint
to the king of Persia, search was made for the decree of
Cyrus, and when it was found, Darius permitted the Jews to
proceed with the Temple; 'Let the governor of the Jews and the
'elders of the Jews build this house of God in his place;' and
thereupon the structure and the outer walls thereof (the
square of 600 feet) were completed: 'They builded and finished
it … on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the
sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.' Thus far the
rebuilding extended to the Temple only, and not to the walls
of the city. Ezra afterwards obtained a decree to restore the
nationality of the Jews, viz., to 'set magistrates and judges,
which might judge all the people;' and afterwards Nehemiah,
the cupbearer to the king, was enabled in a favourable moment
to win from him express permission to rebuild the Baris, or
Vestry, afterwards Antonia, and also the city: 'Send me unto
Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may
build it;' and a direction was given to the governors beyond
the Euphrates to forward Nehemiah and his company to
Jerusalem; and the king's forester was required to supply the
necessary timber."
T. Lewin,
Jerusalem,
chapter 2.
{1911}
"The Jews returned home sobered and improved by their
sufferings in exile, and entirely cured of their early
hankering after idolatry. Having no political independence,
and living under a governor, they devoted themselves all the
more to religion, the only source and support of their
nationality, and became zealots for the law, and for a devout
carrying out of all its precepts, as far as practicable. All,
indeed, could not be again restored, The most holy of the new
temple was empty, for it was without the lost and
irreplaceable ark of the covenant; the oracular ornaments of
the high-priest had disappeared. As Jerusalem was now, far
more than formerly, the head and heart of the nation, the
high-priesthood … was the authority to which the nation
willingly submitted; it served as the representative and
pillar of unity, and the sons of David were forgotten. Another
of the abiding consequences of their exile was, the altered
mode of life which the nation led. At first they had been
exclusively devoted to agriculture; but after mixing with
strangers they learnt to engage in trade, and this inclination
went on always increasing; it contributed essentially to their
being spread far beyond the borders of Palestine, and to their
multiplying their settlements in foreign lands."
J. J. I. Dollinger,
The Gentile and the Jew
in the Courts of the Temple of Christ,
book 10, section 1 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 9.
JEWS: B. C. 536-A. D. 50.
The Babylonian Jews.
"There is something very remarkable in the history of this
race, for the most part descendants of those families which
had refused to listen to the summons of Zorobabel, Ezra, and
Nehemiah, and to return to the possession of their native
country. … The singular part of their history is this, that,
though willing aliens from their native Palestine, they
remained Jews in character and religion; they continued to be
a separate people, and refused to mingle themselves with the
population of the country in which they were domiciliated.
While those who returned to the Holy Land were in danger of
forming a mixed race, by intermarriages with the neighbouring
tribes, which it required all the sternest exercise of
authority in their rulers to prevent, the Babylonian Jews were
still as distinct a people as the whole race of Israel has
been since the final dispersion. … Nor did they, like the
Jews of Alexandria, become in any degree independent of the
great place of national worship; they were as rigid Jews as if
they had grown up within sight of the Temple. … The Temple
became what the Caaba of Mecca is to the Mohammedans, the
object of the profoundest reverence, and sometimes of a pious
pilgrimage; but the land of their fathers had lost its hold on
their affections; they had no desire to exchange the level
plains of Babylonia for the rich pastures, the golden
cornfields, or the rocky vineyards of Galilee and Judæa. This
Babylonian settlement was so numerous and flourishing, that
Philo more than once intimates the possibility of their
marching in such force to the assistance of their brethren in
Palestine, in case the Roman oppression was carried to excess,
as to make the fate of the war very doubtful. Their chief city
Nearda, was strongly situated in a bend of the river
Euphrates, which almost surrounded the town." About the middle
of the first century (of the Christian era) a band of
freebooters, formed by two brothers of this Jewish community,
gave great provocation to the Babylonians, and to the Parthian
king whose subjects they then were. They were finally, but
with much difficulty, destroyed, and the Babylonians then
"began to commit dreadful reprisals on the whole Jewish
population. The Jews, unable to resist, fled in great numbers
to Seleucia; six years after many more took refuge from a
pestilence in the same city. Seleucia happened to be divided
into two factions: one of the Greeks, the other of the
Syrians. The Jews threw themselves into the scale of the
Syrians, who thus obtained a superiority, till the Greeks came
to terms with the Syrians; and both parties agreed to fall
upon the unhappy Jews. As many as 50,000 men were slain. The
few who escaped fled to Ctesiphon. Even there the enmity of
the Seleucians pursued them; and at length the survivors took
refuge in their old quarters, Nearda and Nisibis."
H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 12 (volume 2).
JEWS: B. C. 433-332.
The century of Silence.
"The interval between the Testaments has been called 'The
Centuries of Silence.' The phrase is most untrue; for, as a
whole, this time was vocal with the cry of a battle in which
empire contended with empire, and philosophy with philosophy:
it was an age of earnest and angry contention. But the hundred
years succeeding the death of Nehemiah are for us, so far as
any record remains of that Judæan history, a century of
silence. For some reason which does not appear, the period
from the death of this sturdy old captain at Jerusalem to the
time of the Greek conquest of Persia has no Jewish history.
That it was a period of growth and development with the
Judæans—especially in their theological and ecclesiastical
life—is evident from the changes which the close of the
century shows. The stress of external events made it a time of
heavy taxation and distress,—a time of struggle with Samaria,
and of internal conflict for the control of the high priest's
office."
T. R Slicer,
Between the Testaments
(The New World, March, 1892).
JEWS: B. C. 413-332.
The rule of the High Priests.
"After the death of Nehemiah and the high priest, Eliashib
(413 B. C.), the Persian Court did not appoint governors of
Judea. Samaria was the seat of the Persian Satrap for Syria,
Phœnicia and Palestine. The sons of David had lost prestige
under Nehemiah (Psalm lxxxix.). The ruler acknowledged by the
Law, the prophet (Deuteronomy xviii. 15), was no more; the
last prophets under Nehemiah, with the exception of Malachi,
had proved unworthy of their illustrious predecessors.
Therefore, the high priest was now the first man in the
theocracy, and, contrary to the Laws of Moses (Leviticus x.
3), he was acknowledged the chief ruler of the nation,
although he was no longer the bearer of the Urim and Thumim
(Ezra ii. 63). He presided over the Great Synod, was the
representative of the people before the king and his satrap,
and gradually he established himself in the highest dignity of
the nation."
I. M. Wise,
History of the Hebrews' Second Commonwealth, 1st period,
chapter 4.
{1912}
JEWS: B. C. 332-167.
The Greek domination.
Jewish dispersion.
Hellenism.
On the fall of the Persian monarchy, Judea, with all the rest
of western Asia, was gathered into the empire of Alexander the
Great (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330, and after), Jerusalem
submitting to him without a siege, and so avoiding the fate of
Tyre. In the wars between Alexander's generals and successors,
which followed his death, Palestine changed masters several
times, but does not seem to have been much disturbed. The High
Priests continued to be the chiefs of the nation, and neither
the religion nor the internal government of the Hebrew state
suffered much interference. The final partition made among the
new Macedonian kings (B. C. 302), gave Palestine to Ptolemy of
Egypt, and it remained subject to Egypt for a century. This
period was a happy one, on the whole, for the Jews. The
Ptolemies were friendly to them, with one exception,
respecting their religion and laws. Large numbers of them
settled in Egypt, and especially in the rising new capital and
emporium of trade—Alexandria. But in 201 B. C. Antiochus the
Great, king of the Syrian or Seleucid monarchy, wrested
Cœlosyria and Palestine from the Ptolemies and added it to his
own dominions.
See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.
Antiochus dealt favorably with the Jews, but his successors
proved harder masters than the Egyptian Greeks.
H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 5, section 2 (volume 5).
"These kings promoted the settlement of Greeks and Syrians in
Palestine, so that it was by degrees all covered with cities
and towns of Grecian nomenclature. The narrow territory of
Judea alone kept free of them, but was surrounded with
settlers whose speech, customs, and creed were Greek. On the
other hand, the Jews went on spreading in lands where Greek
was spoken. A good many of these were planted in Egypt, in the
newly founded capital Antioch, in Lydia and Phrygia. Led on by
their love of trade, they soon became numerous in the
commercial cities of western Asia, Ephesus, Pergamus, Miletus,
Sardis, &c. From Egypt and Alexandria, in which city, at a
later period, they formed two-fifths of the inhabitants, they
drew along the coast of Africa to Cyrene and the towns of the
Pentapolis, and from Asia Anterior to the Macedonian and Greek
marts; for the national love of commerce became more and more
developed, till it absorbed all other occupations, and to this
certainly the general inclination for commercial intercourse,
prevalent at that period, greatly contributed. Thus it
happened that two movements, identical in their operation,
crossed each other, viz., an influx of Greek, or of Asiatic
but hellenised, settlers into Palestine, and an outpouring of
Jews and Samaritans into the, cities speaking the Greek
tongue. In olden times, while the Israelites still possessed a
national kingdom, they felt their isolation from other people
as a burden. It was as an oppressive yoke to them, which they
bore impatiently, and were always trying to shake off. They
wanted to live like other nations, to eat, drink, and
intermarry with them, and, together with their own God, to
honour the gods of the stranger also; for many raw and
carnally-minded Jews only looked upon the one special God and
protector of their nation as one god amongst many. But now
there was a complete change in this respect. The Jews
everywhere lived and acted upon the fundamental principle,
that between them and all other nations there was an
insurmountable barrier; they shut themselves off, and formed
in every town separate corporations, with officers of their
own; while at the same time they kept up a constant connexion
with the sanctuary at Jerusalem. They paid a tribute to the
temple there, which was carefully collected everywhere, and
from time to time conveyed in solemn procession to Jerusalem.
There alone, too, could the sacrifices and gifts which were
demanded by the law be offered. In this wise they preserved a
centre and a metropolis. And yet there followed from all this
an event, which in its consequences was one of the most
important in history, namely, the hellenising of the Jews who
were living out of Judea, and even, in a degree, of those who
remained in their own land. They were a people too gifted

intellectually to resist the magnetic power by which the
Hellenistic tongue and modes of thought and action worked even
upon such as were disposed to resist them on principle. The
Jews in the commercial towns readily acquired the Greek, and
soon forgot their mother tongue; and as the younger generation
already in their domestic circle were not taught Greek by
natives, as might be supposed, this Jewish Greek grew into a
peculiar idiom, the Hellenistic. During the reign of the
second Ptolemy, 284-247 B. C., the law of Moses was translated
at Alexandria into Greek, probably more to meet the religious
wants of the Jews of the dispersion than to gratify the desire
of the king. The necessity of a knowledge of Hebrew for the
use of the holy Scriptures was thereby done away with, and
Greek language and customs became more and more prevalent.
Individuals began to join this or that school of philosophy,
according to predilection and intellectual bias. The Platonic
philosophy had necessarily most attractions for the disciples
of Moses. The intrusion of Hellenism into Judea itself met
with a much more considerable resistance from the old
believing and conservative Jews. Those of the heathen
dispersion were obliged to be satisfied with mere prayer,
Bible readings and expositions, in their proseuchæ and
synagogues, and to do without the solemn worship and
sacrifices of the temple; but in Jerusalem the temple-worship
was carried out with all its ancient usages and symbols. There
presided the Sopherim, the Scribes or skilled expounders of
the law, a title first appropriated to Esdras (about 450 B.
C.). He was one of the founders of the new arrangements in the
restored state, and was a priest, and at the same time a judge
appointed by the king of Persia. … From that time forth
dependence on the law, pride in its possession as the pledge
of divine election, and the careful custody of this wall of
partition, sank deep into the character of the nation, and
became the source of many advantages as well as of serious
faults. … The later Jewish tradition makes much mention of
the great synagogue believed to have existed already in the
time of Esdras, or to have been founded by him. It is supposed
to have mustered 120 members, and, under the presidency of the
high-priest, was to be the guardian of the law and doctrine.
{1913}
One of its last rulers was Simon the Just, who was
high-priest, and the most distinguished doctor of his time
(that of the first Ptolemys). Afterwards this threefold
dignity or function of high-priest, scribe or rabbi, and of
Nasi or prince of the synagogue, were never united in one
person. … The high-priesthood fell into contempt, the more
it served foreign rulers as the venal instrument of their
caprice; but the Scribes flourished as being the preservers of
all theological and juridical knowledge, and were supported by
the respect and confidence of the people. … By the year 170
B. C., Hellenism had undoubtedly made such progress among the
Jews, in Palestine even, that the Assyrian king, Antiochus
Epiphanes, was able to plan the extirpation of the Jewish
religion, and the conversion of the temple at Jerusalem into a
temple of Jupiter Olympius."
J. J. I. Döllinger,
The Gentile and the Jew
in the Courts of the Temple of Christ,
book 10, section 1 (volume 2).
Twice, Antiochus Epiphanes crushed rebellion in Jerusalem with
awful ferocity. On the last occasion, the slain were believed
to number 80,000, while 10,000 captives were led away and sold
as slaves. The city was sacked and partly burned; the Temple
was plundered and polluted. "Not content with these
enormities, Antiochus determined to abolish altogether the
Jewish religion, and, if possible, entirely to exterminate the
race. With this intention, he issued an edict throughout his
dominions, calling upon all the nations who were subject to
his authority to renounce their religion and worship his gods,
and this order he enforced with the most severe pains and
penalties. The Jews were the only people who ventured to
disobey the edict, whereupon, Antiochus ordered them to be
treated with the utmost rigour, and sent to Jerusalem an old
man named Atheneas, who was well versed in the rites of the
Greek worship, as commissioner, to enforce obedience to his
commands. This old pagan dedicated the Temple to Jupiter
Olympus, and placed a statue of that false deity upon the
altar of burnt offering. This desecration was not confined to
Jerusalem, for everywhere throughout the Syrian empire groves
and temples were dedicated, and statues and altars erected, to
the heathen deities, and the worship of the true God was
everywhere prohibited, and punished as the worst of crimes.
That the chief fury of Antiochus's impious rage was directed
against the Jews is evident from the fact that, whilst a
general edict was published, condemning to death or torture
all those who refused to worship the idols, a special decree
was promulgated, by which it was made death to offer
sacrifices to the God of Israel, observe the Sabbath, practise
circumcision, or indeed to conform in the smallest degree to
the precepts of the Mosaic law. Every effort was also made to
destroy the copies of the Holy Scriptures; and persons
refusing to deliver them up were punished by death. In this
terrible distress, many of the Jews abandoned their homes and
took shelter in the wilderness, where 'they lived in the
mountains after the manner of beasts, and fed on herbs
continuously lest they should be partakers of the pollution'
(Maccabees v.). Of those who remained behind, some few yielded
to the temptation, and saved themselves by apostacy, but the
majority remained faithful to the God of their forefathers,
Who, in His own good time, hearkened to the prayers of His
people, and sent them a deliverer."
E. H. Palmer,
History of the Jewish Nation,
chapter 7.
JEWS: B. C. 166-40.
Revolt of the Maccabees.
Reign of the Asmoneans.
Rise of Herod.
The heroic family called The Maccabees, which began and led
the revolt of the Jewish people against the oppression and
persecution of the Seleucidæan kings, bore, also, the name of
the Asmonean or Hasmonean family, derived from the name of
"its chief of four generations back, Chasmon, or Asmon, 'the
magnate.'" The head of the family at the time of the outbreak
of the revolt, and who precipitated it, was Mattathias. He had
five sons, the third of whom, Judas, became the military
leader and great hero of the nation in its struggle. To Judas
was given the surname or appellation of Makkabi, from whence
came his historical name of Judas Maccabæus, and the general
name of The Maccabees by which his family at large is commonly
designated. The surname "Makkabi" is conjectured to have had
the same meaning as that of Charles the "Martel"—viz., the
"Hammerer"; but this is questioned. "Under Judas the revolt
assumed larger proportions, and in a short time he was able to
meet and defeat the Syrians in the open field. The situation
which the Romans had created in Syria was favourable to the
Jewish cause. In order to find money to pay the tribute
imposed by Rome upon his house; Antiochus had to undertake an
expedition into the Far East, which depleted Syria of a large
number of troops. During the king's absence the government of
the country was entrusted to a high functionary named Lysias.
Lysias took a serious view of the rebellion in Judæa, and
despatched a force under the command of three generals to
suppress it. But this army met with alarming reverses at the
hands of Judas, and Lysias was obliged to go to Palestine in
person to conduct the campaign. Meanwhile Antiochus had been
apprised of the disasters which had befallen his captains, and
was hastening homewards to assume the supreme direction of
affairs, when death put a termination to his career (B. C.
164). The pressure of Roman policy upon Antiochus was the
indirect cause of the Jewish revolt, and the immediate cause
of the king's inability to suppress it. After the death of
Antiochus, the distracted state of Syria and the struggles of
rival pretenders for the crown strengthened the position of
the Jewish patriots. Antiochus V., son of the late king, was
only nine years old when he began to reign (B. C. 164). His
father had appointed a courtier named Philip regent during his
son's minority. But this arrangement did not satisfy Lysias,
who had the young king in his custody, and who was carrying on
the campaign in Palestine when the news of his supersession by
Philip arrived. Lysias immediately left off the contest with
Judas, and devoted his energies to the task of resisting
Philip's claims. At this juncture, if any historic value can
be attached to a statement in the Second Book of the
Maccabees, two Roman envoys, Quintus Memmius and Titus
Manlius, who were probably on their way from Alexandria to
Antioch, offered to take charge of Jewish interests at the
Syrian capital. Peace is said to have been the outcome of
their efforts (B. C. 162). But it was a peace which did not
endure.
{1914}
In the following year the Syrian king once more invaded
Palestine at the head of a great army, and, in spite of the
strenuous opposition of Judas, laid siege to the Holy City.
Famine soon reduced the garrison to the last extremities, and
their fate would have been a hard one had not the disordered
condition of Syria compelled the besiegers to accept
honourable terms. Whilst the siege was in progress news came
to the Syrian camp that Philip had put himself at the head of
a large army, with the intention of enforcing his claims to
the regency. No time was to be lost, and the king, acting on
the advice of Lysias, accorded the Jews religious liberty.
Jerusalem capitulated; and the same order of things was
established as had existed previous to the insurrection. Soon
after these events Antiochus V. was dethroned and executed by
his relative, Demetrius I. In Judæa the new monarch allowed
the people to retain the religious liberties granted them by
his predecessor, and had he exercised more judgment in the
selection of a High Priest it would have been impossible for
Judas to renew the struggle against Syria with any prospect of
success. The Assidæans, or Pious Ones, who afterwards
developed into the party known as the Pharisees, and who,
while their religion was at stake, were devoted followers of
Judas, were satisfied with the attainment of religious
freedom. But Judas and his friends, who formed the party which
afterwards became the Sadducees, … were unwilling to relax
their efforts till the country was completely independent. The
Assidæans, consisting of the scribes and the bulk of the
population, accepted Alcimus, the High Priest whom Demetrius
had appointed, and were disposed for peace. But the senseless
barbarities of Alcimus threw the Assidæans once more into the
arms of the war party, and the struggle began afresh. The High
Priest was obliged to flee from Jerusalem; Demetrius sent an
army to reinstate him, but Judas defeated the Syrian forces,
and the Jews enjoyed a short period of repose. … Two Jewish
delegates, Eupolemos and Jason, were sent to Italy to form an
alliance with Rome. The Senate, which never neglected an
opportunity of crippling the Syrian monarchy, accorded a
favourable reception to the Jewish envoys, and acknowledged
the independence of their country. … While these
negotiations were taking place the Syrian army again invaded
Palestine. Judas went forth to meet them, and, after a
desperate conflict, was defeated and slain [at Beer-Zath] (B.
C. 161). The death of their leader shattered the party of
freedom, and the Romans, probably because they saw no distinct
centre of authority left standing in the country, ignored the
treaty they had just made with the Jewish envoys, and left
Judæa to its fate. It was not by direct intervention that the
Romans helped the Jews forward on the path of independence; it
was by the disintegrating action of Roman policy on the
kingdom of Syria. The Jewish leaders did not fail to take
advantage of the opportunities which were thus afforded them.
About nine years after the death of Judas Maccabæus, the
Romans started a new pretender to the Syrian crown in the
person of Alexander Balas, a young man of unknown origin (B.
C. 152). Supported by the allies of Rome, Balas was able to
take the field against Demetrius, who became alarmed at the
threatening aspect of affairs: Jonathan, a brother of Judas,
was then at the head of the Jewish patriots (B. C. 161-142),
and Demetrius attempted by concessions to win him over to his
side. When the pretender Balas heard of this, he immediately
outbade Demetrius, and offered Jonathan the High Priesthood as
the price of his support. Jonathan sold himself to the highest
bidder, and, notwithstanding further profuse promises from
Demetrius, the Jewish leader remained true to his allegiance.
The war between the two rivals did not last long; Demetrius
was overthrown and slain (B. C. 151), and at the marriage of
the new king, Jonathan was appointed civil and military
governor of Judæa." The spiritual and the temporal government
of the Jews was now united in the office of High Priest.
Jonathan, captured and murdered by one of the Syrian
pretenders, was succeeded in the office (B. C. 142), by
another brother, Simon, who was assassinated, B. C. 135, by an
ambitious son-in-law. Simon's son, John Hyrcanus, took his
place.
W. D. Morrison,
The Jews under Roman Rule,
chapter 1.
The Asmonean family had now become so established in its
princely character that the next of the line, Judas (who took
the Greek name Aristobulus), assumed the crown and title of
King (B. C. 105). Aristobulus reigned less than two years, and
was succeeded by his brother Jonathan (Jannæus) Alexander.
"These Jewish princes were as wide apart in character as in
name from the house whose honours they inherited. Aristobulus,
the bloody, … starved in prison his mother, whom John had
left as regent. … Alexander, named Jannæus, in a reign of
five and twenty years, was mostly occupied in petty
wars,—generally unsuccessful, but indefatigable to begin
afresh. He signalized himself in successive revolts of his
people, first by the barbarous slaughter of 6,000, then by a
civil war of some six years, which cost 10,000 lives, and
finally by crucifying 800. … A restless, dissolute,
ambitious man, called 'the Thracian' for his barbarities, his
rule abhorred except for the comparative mercy he showed in
the cities he had conquered, he died [B. C. 79] before the age
of fifty, having done the one service of confirming the Jewish
power upon the soil of Palestine."
J. H. Allen,
Hebrew Men and Times,
chapter 10.
"When … Jannæus Alexander died, the Jewish kingdom stretched
towards the south over the whole Philistian territory as far
as the Egyptian frontier; towards the south-east as far as the
Nabatæan kingdom of Petra, from which Jannæus had wrested
considerable tracts on the right bank of the Jordan and the
Dead Sea; towards the north over Samaria and the Decapolis up
to the lake of Gennesareth; here he was already making
arrangements to occupy Ptolemais (Acco) and victoriously to
repel the aggressions of the Ityræans. The coast obeyed the
Jews from Mount Carmel as far as Rhinocorura, including the
important Gaza—Ascalon alone was still free; so that the
territory of the Jews, once almost cut off from the sea, could
now be enumerated among the asylums of piracy. Now that the
Armenian invasion, just as it approached the borders of Judæa,
was averted by the intervention of Lucullus, … the gifted
rulers of the Hasmonæan house would probably have carried
their arms still further, had not the development of the power
of that remarkable conquering sacerdotal state been arrested
by internal divisions.
{1915}
The spirit of religious independence and the national
patriotism—the energetic union of which had called the
Maccabee state into life—very soon became dissociated and
even antagonistic. The Jewish orthodoxy [or Pharisaism]
gaining fresh strength in the times of the Maccabees, …
proposed as its practical aim a community of Jews composed of
the orthodox in all lands essentially irrespective of the
secular government—a community which found its visible points
of union in the tribute to the temple at Jerusalem obligatory
on every conscientious Jew and in the schools of religion and
spiritual courts, and its canonical superintendence in the
great temple consistory at Jerusalem, which was reconstituted
in the first period of the Maccabees and may be compared as
respects its sphere of jurisdiction to the Roman pontifical
college. Against this orthodoxy, which was becoming more and
more ossified into theological formalism and a painful
ceremonial service, was arrayed the opposition of the
so-called Sadducees—partly dogmatic, in so far as these
innovators acknowledged only the sacred books themselves and
conceded authority merely, not canonicity, to the 'bequests of
the scribes,' that is canonical tradition; partly political,
in so far as instead of a fatalistic waiting for the strong
arm of the Lord of Zebaoth they taught that the salvation of
the nation was to be expected from the weapons of this world,
and above all from the internal and external strengthening of
the kingdom of David as re-established in the glorious times
of the Maccabees. The partisans of orthodoxy found their
support in the priesthood and the multitude. … Jannæus had
kept down the priesthood with a strong hand; under his two
sons there arose … a civil and fraternal war, since the
Pharisees opposed the vigorous Aristobulus and attempted to
obtain their objects under the nominal rule of his brother,
the good-natured and indolent Hyrcanus. This dissension not
merely put a stop to the Jewish conquests, but gave also
foreign nations opportunity to interfere and to obtain a
commanding position in southern Syria. This was the case first
of all with the Nabatæans. This remarkable nation has often
been confounded with its eastern neighbours, the wandering
Arabs, but it is more closely related to the Aramæan branch
than to the proper children of Ishmael. This Aramæan, or,
according to the designation of the Occidentals, Syrian, stock
must have in very early times sent forth from its most ancient
settlements about Babylon a colony, probably for the sake of
trade, to the northern end of the Arabian gulf; these were the
Nabatæans on the Sinaitic peninsula, between the gulf of Suez
and Aila, and in the region of Petra (Wadi Mousa). In their
ports the wares of the Mediterranean were exchanged for those
of India; the great southern caravan-route, which ran from
Gaza to the mouth of the Euphrates and the Persian gulf,
passed through the capital of the Nabatæans—Petra—whose
still magnificent rock-palaces and rock-tombs furnish clearer
evidence of the Nabatæan civilization than does an almost
extinct tradition. The party of the Pharisees, to whom after
the manner of priests the victory of their faction seemed not
too dearly bought at the price of the independence and
integrity of their country, solicited Aretas the king of the
Nabatæans for aid against Aristobulus, in return for which
they promised to give back to him all the conquests wrested
from him by Jannæus. Thereupon Aretas had advanced with, it
was said, 50,000 men into Judæa and, reinforced by the
adherents of the Pharisees, he kept king Aristobulus besieged
in his capital."
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 4 (volume 4).
"While this was going on, Pompey had meanwhile begun his
victorious campaign in Asia [see ROME: B. C. 69-63]. He had
conquered Mithridates in B. C. 66, and had in the same year
received the voluntary submission of Tigranes. While he
himself now pressed on farther into Asia, he sent Scaurus to
Syria in B. C. 65. When that general arrived at Damascus he
heard of the war between the brothers in Judea, and pushed
forward without delay to see how he might turn to account this
strife between the rival princes. He had scarcely reached
Judea when ambassadors presented themselves before him, both
from Aristobulus and from Hyrcanus. They both sought his
favour and support. Aristobulus offered him in return four
hundred talents; and Hyrcanus could not be behind, and so
promised the same sum. But Scaurus trusted Aristobulus rather
because he was in a better position to fulfil his engagement,
and so decided to take his side. He ordered Aretas to withdraw
if he did not wish to be declared an enemy of the Romans.
Aretas did not venture to show opposition. He therefore raised
the siege, and thereupon Scaurus returned to Damascus. But
Aristobulus pursued Aretas on his way homeward, and inflicted
upon him a crushing defeat. But the Roman favour which
Aristobulus had so exerted himself to secure, under the
protection of which he believed himself to be safe, soon
proved fatal to his well-being and that of his country. He
himself left no stone unturned in order to win the goodwill of
Pompey as well as of Scaurus. He sent Pompey a costly present,
a skilfully wrought golden vine worth five hundred talents,
which Strabo found still on view at Rome in the temple of
Jupiter Capitolinus. But all this could not save Aristobulus,
whenever Pompey found it to be for his advantage to withdraw
his favour and take the side of Hyrcanus. In the spring of B.
C. 63, Pompey proceeded from his winter quarters into Syria,
subdued the greater and smaller princes in the Lebanon, and
advanced by way of Heliopolis and Chalcis upon Damascus. There
he was met at one and the same time by representatives of
three Jewish parties. Not only did Aristobulus and Hyrcanus
appear, but the Jewish people also sent an embassy. Hyrcanus
complained that Aristobulus, in defiance of all law, had
violently assumed the government; Aristobulus justified his
conduct by pointing out the incapacity of Hyrcanus. But the
people wished to have nothing to do with either, asked for the
abolition of the monarchy and the restoration of the old
theocratic constitution of the priests. Pompey heard them, but
cautiously deferred any decision, and declared that he would
put all things in order when he had accomplished his
contemplated expedition against the Nabatheans. Till then all
parties were to maintain the peace. Aristobulus, however, was
by no means satisfied with this arrangement, and betrayed his
discontent by suddenly quitting Dium, whither he had
accompanied Pompey on his expedition against the Nabatheans.
Pompey grew suspicious, postponed his campaign against the
Nabatheans, and marched immediately against Aristobulus.
{1916}
He … pursued him through Jericho, and soon appeared in the
neighbourhood of Jerusalem. But now Aristobulus lost heart. He
betook himself to the camp of Pompey, gave him further
presents, and promised to surrender to him the city if Pompey
would suspend hostilities. Pompey was satisfied with this, and
sent his general Gabinius to take possession of the city,
while he retained Aristobulus in the camp. But Gabinius
returned without having obtained his object, for the people in
the city had shut the gates against him. Pompey was so enraged
at this that he put Aristobulus in prison, and immediately
advanced against the city. … The city was surrendered to
Pompey, who sent in his legate Piso, and without drawing sword
took possession of it. But the war faction gathered together
on the temple mount and there prepared themselves for
resistance. The temple mount was then, as afterwards, the
strongest point in Jerusalem. It presented to the east and the
south a sheer precipice. Also on the west it was separated
from the city by a deep ravine. Only on the north was there a
gradual slope; but even there approach was made almost
impossible by the construction of strong fortifications. In
this fortress, well nigh impregnable, the adherents of
Aristobulus had now taken refuge, and Pompey, whether he would
or not, had to engage upon a regular siege. … After a three
months' siege, a breach was made in the wall. A son of the
dictator Sulla was the first to make way through it with his
troops. Others quickly followed. Then began a frightful
massacre. The priests, who were then engaged offering
sacrifice, would not desist from the execution of their
office, and were hewn down at the altar. No less than 12,000
Jews are said to have lost their lives in this general
butchery. It was towards the close of autumn of the year B. C.
63, under Cicero's consulship, according to Josephus on the
very day of atonement, according to Dio Cassius on a Sabbath,
that this holy city bowed its head before the Roman commander.
Pompey himself forced his way into the Most Holy Place, into
which only the feet of the high priest had ever before
entered. But he left the treasures and precious things of the
temple untouched, and also took care that the service of God
should be continued without interruption. On the besieged he
passed a severe sentence. Those who had promoted the war were
beheaded; the city and the country were made tributary. …
The boundaries of the Jewish territories were greatly
curtailed. All the coast towns from Raphia to Dora were taken
from the Jews; and also all non-Jewish towns on the east of
the Jordan, such as Hippos, Gadara, Pella, Dium, and others;
also Scythopolis and Samaria, with the regions around them.
All these towns were immediately put under the rule of the
governor of the newly-formed Roman province of Syria. The
contracted Jewish territory was given over to Hyrcanus II.,
who was recognised as high priest, without the title of king.
… With the institutions of Pompey the freedom of the Jewish
people, after having existed for scarcely eighty years, if we
reckon it as beginning in B. C. 142, was completely
overthrown. Pompey, indeed, was acute enough to insist upon no
essential change in the internal government of the country. He
suffered the hierarchical constitution to remain intact, and
gave the people as their high priest Hyrcanus II., who was
favoured by the Pharisees. But the independence of the nation
was at an end, and the Jewish high priest was a vassal of the
Romans."
E. Schürer,
History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ,
division 1, volume 1, pages 317-324.
Hyrcanus II. was not merely the vassal of the Romans; he was
the puppet of one of his own partisans—the able Idumean,
Antipater, who gathered the reins of government into his own
hands. "Antipater ruled without interfering with Hyrcanus; he
rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem, and appointed Phasael, the
eldest of his four heroic sons (whose mother was Kypros, an
Arabian), to be ruler of the district of the holy city, and
Herod the younger to be ruler of Galilee. This young man, who
was at that time scarcely twenty-five years old, was soon able
to surpass even his father. … He purified Galilee from the
robber-bands, of which Hezekiah was the most dreaded leader,
and by so doing, although he was already a mark for the hatred
borne by the national and priestly party against the Edomites,
as friends of their new tyrants the Romans, he distinguished
himself by dealing summarily with the robbers, without
appealing to the legal authorities. He therefore appeared
before the Sanhedrim of Jerusalem, to which he was summoned by
Hyrcanus, with a military escort, wearing purple, with his
head anointed, and bearing a letter of safe-conduct from his
patron Sextus Cæsar, the ruler of Syria. … Hyrcanus allowed
him to withdraw in defiance: he hastened to Syria, bought the
governments of Cœle-Syria and Samaria (B. C. 46), marched
thence with an army towards Jerusalem, and when he had with
difficulty been persuaded by his father and brother to return,
he rejoiced that he had at least menaced the country. Neither
the death of Julius Cæsar (B. C. March 44), the civil war at
Rome, nor the poisoning of his father Antipater at the table
of Hyrcanus in the year 43, interfered with Herod's success:
He bought the favour of Cæsar's murderers by the unexampled
haste with which he brought in large contributions, amounting
to a hundred talents (more than £20,000) from Galilee alone,
so that Cassius appointed him Procurator of Syria, and
promised him the dignity of king, in the event of a victory
over Anthony and Octavianus, a prospect which indeed cost his
father his life. Nor was Herod's power destroyed by the
unfortunate battle of Philippi in the autumn of B. C. 42. He
succeeded in gaining Anthony by the influence of his person
and of his wealth; and in spite of all the embassies of the
Jews, Phasael and Herod were appointed tetrarchs of the whole
of Judea in the year B. C. 41. His betrothal to Mariamne,
grand-child of Hyrcanus, which took place at the same time,
added the illusion of national and hereditary right to Herod's
previous good fortune. But there was first an interval of
hardship. Immediately afterwards, the Parthian armies overran
Upper Asia, while Anthony remained in Egypt, ensnared by
Cleopatra: they took Jerusalem [B. C. 40], and to please that
place as well as the Jews of Babylon, they installed
Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, as king, taking Phasael and
Hyrcanus prisoners, while Herod escaped with difficulty. All
was ended with a blow, Herod was put to flight, Phasael killed
himself, and Antigonus cut off the cars of Hyrcanus the high
priest. Herod landed in Italy as an adventurer.
{1917}
He met Anthony, and by his means also gained over Octavianus.
Fear and hatred of the Parthians effected even more than old
acquaintance and new engagements: and beyond his most daring
hopes a decree of the senate [B. C. 40] bestowed the kingdom
of Judea upon him."
T. Keim,
History of Jesus of Nazara,
volume I, page 231.
JEWS: B. C. 40-A. D. 44.
Herod and the Herodians.
Roman rule.
Returning to Judæa with his new rank and the confirmed support
of Rome, "Herod slowly obtained possession of the country, not
without the help of Roman legions, and in a third campaign, in
June (Sivan), B. C. 37, occupied Jerusalem [after a siege of
half a year] and the Temple, in the halls of which fire raged,
contrary to his wish, and blood streamed through its courts.
This was the second Roman occupation of Jerusalem, after an
interval of twenty-six years, even to a day. Antigonus fell,
by the king's wish, beneath the axe of Anthony, and the
Maccabean house had ceased to reign. The new kingdom underwent
its final crisis in the war between Octavianus and Anthony, in
which Herod was constrained to take part with Anthony. … The
frankness with which, after the battle of Actium (September,
B. C. 31), he proclaimed his friendship for Anthony to
Octavianus at the island of Rhodes, in order to set before him
the prospect of a like faithfulness, procured the crown for
him afresh, which Octavianus set upon his head." Octavianus
"restored to him all the possessions which his intriguing
enemy Cleopatra had obtained at his expense in the south of
the country and on its western coast, giving to him Gadra,
Hippo, Samaria, and on the coast Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, the
tower of Strato, and in short the whole country, and even more
than he had lost by Pompey's conquests. A few years later the
same benefactor enlarged the kingdom on the north-east, by
making over to Herod, between the years B. C. 24-21, the wide
extent of territory reaching to Anti-Lebanon, and Damascus, in
order to protect that city from attacks on the side of the
desert. He was appointed Procurator-General of Syria, and
afterwards nearly obtained the government of Arabia. It was in
fact almost the kingdom of David which was again united under
Herod. Herod enjoyed the favour of Octavianus, with few
intervals, to the last. … Herod did not merely owe his
success to that officious attention which displayed the
greatness of Rome in costly hospitalities, gifts, and edifices
of every kind, but to his genuine fidelity and manly heroism,
his pre-eminent wisdom and readiness to accept the culture of
the West, qualities which were recognized as adapting him to
be a most useful ally in the territory which bounded the
eastern empire of Rome, where the inhabitants were so ready to
take offence. Herod, in a certain sense, emulated his friend
in Rome, in introducing an Augustan era into his land. He, as
well as Octavianus, put an end to war, and the dominion which
had been cemented together by the blood of its citizens
enjoyed a long peace, lasting for almost forty years. … The
prosperity of the country increased so much in these quiet
times that Herod, when he began to build the Temple, boasted
of the wealth and income which had accumulated in an
unprecedented manner, so as to confirm the most fabulous
accounts of the luxurious expenditure of his reign. … Herod
was not devoid of nobler qualities, even although they have
been forgotten by the Jews and Christians. He was not merely a
brave leader in war, a bold hunter and rider, and a sagacious
ruler; there was in him a large-heartedness and an innate
nobility of mind which enabled him to be a benefactor of his
people. This fundamental characteristic of his nature,
inherited from his father, is admitted by the Jewish
historian, times out of number, and has been shown by his
affection for his father, mother, and brothers, and also for
his friends, by his beneficence in good fortune, and even in
adversity. … When in the thirteenth year of his reign (B. C.
25), some years before the building of the Temple, famine and
sickness devastated the land, he sold the gold and silver
treasures in his house, and himself became poor, while he
bespoke great quantities of grain from Egypt, which he
dispensed, and caused to be made into bread: he clothed the
poor, and fed 50,000 men at his own expense: he himself sent
help to the towns of Syria, and obtained the immediate, and
indeed the enduring gratitude of the people as a second
Joseph. Yet it was only the large-heartedness of a barbarian,
without true culture, or deeper morality. Hence came the
unscrupulousness, the want of consideration for the national
peculiarities which he opposed, the base cunning and vanity
which coloured all his actions, and hence again, especially in
later life, he became subject to caprices, to anger and
repentance, to mistrust and cruelty, to the wiles of women and
of eunuchs. He was, in short, only the petty tyrant, the
successful upstart who was self-seeking, and at once rash and
timid; a beggar before Augustus; a foolish time-server before
the Greek and Roman world; a tyrant in his own house, and
incapable either of resisting influence or of enduring
contradiction. … The dangerous position of the upstart, with
respect to the earlier royal family and to the national
aversion, the divisions of his numerous family, the intrigues
of a court of women, eunuchs, barbers, and frivolous
flatterers of every description, drew him on, as if with
demoniacal power, from one stage of cruelty to another. …
Daily executions began on his entry into Jerusalem in the year
B. C. 37 with the execution of Antigonus, of the nephew of
Hyrcanus, and of his own dependants. … He pardoned no one
whom he suspected: he enforced obedience by an oath, and
whoever would not swear forfeited his life. Innumerable people
disappeared mysteriously in the fortress of Hyrcania. Life was
forfeited even for the offence of meeting or standing
together, when it was noticed by the countless spies in the
city and on the highways, and indeed by himself in his rounds
by night. The bloody decimation of his own family was most
revolting. About the year B. C. 35 he caused his wife's
brother Aristobulus, who had been high priest for eighteen
years, to be stifled by his Gallic guards in a pond at
Jericho, because he was popular, and belonged to the old
family: in the year B. C. 31, after the battle of Actium, he
murdered his grandfather-in-law Hyrcanus, aged eighty years,
and in the year B. C. 30 or 29 his wife Mariamne, and a little
later her intriguing mother Alexandra, since they had become
objects of suspicion to him: in the year B. C. 25 his
brother-in-law, Kostobar, find a long line of friends were
slain: about the year B. C. 6, the sons of Mariamne, Alexander
and Aristobulus, were judicially condemned and strangled in
Samaria: and finally the diabolical Antipater, the son of the
first marriage, who, together with Salome, Herod's sister, and
with Alexandra, his mother-in-law, had taken the greatest part
in the crimes of the family."
T. Keim,
History of Jesus of Nazara,
volume 1, pages 233-246.
{1918}
Herod died within the year (B. C. 4) which has been most
generally agreed upon as that of the birth of Jesus. By ten
wives he had had many children, and had slain not a few; but a
large family survived, to quarrel over the heritage, disputing
a will which Herod left. There was a hearing of the disputants
at Rome, and also a hearing given to deputies of the Jewish
people, who prayed to be delivered from the Herodian family,
all and singly. The latter prayer, however, received small
consideration. The imperial judgment established Archelaus,
eldest son of Herod's sixth wife, Malthace, in the sovereignty
of Judæa, Idumæa, and Samaria, with the title of Ethnarch. To
Herod Antipas, second son of the same mother, it gave Galilee
and Peræa. Philip, another son, by a seventh wife, was made
tetrarch of a small principality. Archelaus governed so
oppressively that, after some years (A. D. 6), he was deposed
by the Romans and banished to Gaul. Judæa was then joined to
the præfecture of Syria, under a succession of Roman
governors, the fifth of whom was Pontius Pilate. "Judaea thus
became in the year 6 A. D. a Roman province of the second
rank, and, apart from the ephemeral restoration of the kingdom
of Jerusalem under Claudius in the years 41-44, thenceforth
remained a Roman province. Instead of the previous native
princes holding office for life and, under reservation of
their being confirmed by the Roman government, hereditary,
came an official of the equestrian order, nominated and liable
to recall by the emperor. The port of Caesarea rebuilt by
Herod after a Hellenic model became, probably at once, the
seat of Roman administration. The exemption of the land from
Roman garrison, as a matter of course, ceased, but, as
throughout in provinces of second rank, the Roman military
force consisted only of a moderate number of cavalry and
infantry divisions of the inferior class; subsequently one ala
and five cohorts—about 3,000 men—were stationed there. These
troops were perhaps taken over from the earlier government, at
least in great part formed in the country itself, mostly,
however, from Samaritans and Syrian Greeks. The province did
not obtain a legionary garrison, and even in the territories
adjoining Judaea there was stationed at the most one of the
four Syrian legions. To Jerusalem there came a standing Roman
commandant, who took up his abode in the royal castle, with a
weak standing garrison; only during the time of the Passover,
when the whole land and countless strangers flocked to the
temple, a stronger division of Roman soldiers was stationed in
a colonnade belonging to the temple. … For the native
authorities in Judaea as everywhere the urban communities
were, as far as possible, taken as a basis. Samaria, or as the
town was now called, Sebaste, the newly laid out Caesarea, and
the other urban communities contained in the former kingdom of
Archelaus, were self-administering, under superintendence of
the Roman authority. The government also of the capital with
the large territory belonging to it was organised in a similar
way. Already in the pre-Roman period under the Seleucids there
was formed … in Jerusalem a council of the elders, the
Synhedrion, or as Judaised, the Sanhedrin. The presidency in
it was held by the high priest, whom each ruler of the land,
if he was not possibly himself high priest, appointed for the
time. To the college belonged the former high priests and
esteemed experts in the law. This assembly, in which the
aristocratic element preponderated, acted as the supreme
spiritual representative of the whole body of Jews, and, so
far as this was not to be separated from it, also as the
secular representative in particular of the community of
Jerusalem. It is only the later Rabbinism that has by a pious
fiction transformed the Sanhedrion of Jerusalem into a
spiritual institute of Mosaic appointment. It corresponded
essentially to the council of the Greek urban constitution,
but certainly bore, as respected its composition as well as
its sphere of working, a more spiritual character than
belonged to the Greek representations of the community. To
this Synhedrion and its high priest, who was now nominated by
the procurator as representative of the imperial suzerain, the
Roman government left or committed that jurisdiction which in
the Hellenic subject communities belonged to the urban
authorities and the common councils. With indifferent
short-sightedness it allowed to the transcendental Messianism
of the Pharisees free course, and to the by no means
transcendental land-consistory—acting until the Messiah
should arrive—tolerably free sway in affairs of faith, of
manners, and of law, where Roman interests were not directly
affected thereby. This applied in particular to the
administration of justice. It is true that, as far as Roman
burgesses were concerned in the matter, justice in civil as in
criminal affairs must have been reserved for the Roman
tribunals even already before the annexation of the land. But
civil justice over the Jews remained even after that
annexation chiefly with the local authority. Criminal justice
over them was exercised by the latter probably in general
concurrently with the Roman procurator; only sentences of
death could not be executed by it otherwise than after
confirmation by the imperial magistrate. In the main those
arrangements were the inevitable consequences of the abolition
of the principality, and when the Jews had obtained this
request of theirs, they in fact obtained those arrangements
along with it. … The local coining of petty moneys, as
formerly practised by the kings, now took place in the name of
the Roman ruler; but on account of the Jewish abhorrence of
images the head of the emperor was not even placed on the
coins. Setting foot within the interior of the temple
continued to be forbidden in the case of every non-Jew under
penalty of death. … In the very beginning of the reign of
Tiberius the Jews, like the Syrians, complained of the
pressure of the taxes; especially the prolonged administration
of Pontius Pilatus is charged with all the usual official
crimes by a not unfair observer. But Tiberius, as the same Jew
says, had during the twenty-three years of his reign
maintained the time-hallowed holy customs, and in no part set
them aside or violated them. This is the more to be
recognised, seeing that the same emperor in the West
interfered against the Jews more emphatically than any other,
and thus the long-suffering and caution shown by him in Judaea
cannot be traced back to personal favour for Judaism. In spite of
all this both the opposition on principle to the Roman
government and the violent efforts at self-help on the part of
the faithful developed themselves even in this time of peace."
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome: The Provinces, from Caesar to Diocletian,
book 8, chapter 11.
{1919}
In the year 41 A. D. the house of Herod rose to power again,
in the person of his grandson, Herod Agrippa, descendant of
the unfortunate Mariamne. Agrippa had lived long at Rome and
won the favor of two successive emperors, Caligula and
Claudius. Caligula deposed Herod Antipas from the tetrarchy of
Galilee and conferred it on Agrippa. Claudius, in 41, added
Judæa and Samaria to his dominions, establishing him in a
kingdom even greater than that of his grandfather. He died
suddenly in 44 A. D. and Judæa again relapsed to the state of
a Roman province. His young son, also named Herod Agrippa, was
provided, after a few years, with a small kingdom, that of
Chalcis, exchanged later for one made up of other districts in
Palestine. After the destruction of Jerusalem he retired to
Rome, and the line of Herod ended with him.
H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 12.
ALSO IN:
Josephus,
Antiquity of the Jews,
books 15-20.
H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 5, section 2.
JEWS: B. C. 8-A. D. 1.
Uncertainty of the date of the birth of Jesus.
"The reigning Christian computation of time, that sovereign
authority in accordance with which we reckon our life, and
which is surely above the assault of any critical doubts,
goes, be it remembered, but a very little way towards the
settlement of this question [as to the year of the birth of
Jesus] in as much as its inventor, a Scythian by birth,
Dionysius the Less, Abbot of a Roman monastery (died 556 A.
D.) [see ERA, CHRISTIAN], … had certainly no entire immunity
from human frailty. … The comparatively best assured and
best supported account places the birth of Jesus in the reign
of King Herod the Great. Matthew knows no other chronology:
Luke gives the same, along with another, or, if we will, along
with two others. Matthew more particularly, in his own
account, puts the birth in the last years of that king. Jesus
is a little child at the time of the coming of the Magi, and
he is still a child at the return of Joseph from the flight
into Egypt, after the death of Herod has taken place. We shall
hit the sense of the writer most exactly if we assume that
Jesus, at the time of the coming of the Magi, who gave King
Herod ground for conjecturing a Messiah of about the age of
two,—was about two years old; at the time of Herod's death,
about four. … Now since Herod died … shortly before Easter
of the year 750 A. U. C., i. e., 4 years before the Christian
era, Jesus must have been born four years before. 746 A. U.
C., or 8 years before the reputed Christian era, a view which
is expressly espoused in the fifth Christian century;
according to Apocrypha, 3 years before Herod's death, 747 A.
U. C., 7 years B. C. If we are able in addition to build upon
Kepler's Conjunction of Planets, which Bishop Münter, in his
book, 'The Star of the Wise Men,' 1827, called to remembrance,
we get with complete certainty 747 or 748, the latter, that
is, if we attach any value to the fact that in that year Mars
was added to Jupiter and Saturn. Desirable however as such
certainty might be, it is nevertheless hard to abandon oneself
to it with enthusiastic joy. … An actual reminiscence on the
part of the Christian community of the approximate point of
time at which the Lord was born, would be hard to call in
question, even though it might have overlooked or forgotten
every detail of the youth of Jesus besides. Finally, there is
after all a trace of such reminiscence independent of all
legendary formation. The introductory history of Luke without
any appreciable historical connexion, rather in conflict with
the world of legend represented in his Gospel, places the
birth of John the Baptist and of Jesus in Herod's time. At the
same time there is just as little, or even less, sign than
elsewhere in Luke's preliminary story, of any dependence on
the account in Matthew, or any world of legend like his. We
should thus still be inclined to infer that Jesus, according
to ancient Christian tradition, was born under King Herod, and
more particularly, according to the legend of Matthew, which
after all is the better guaranteed of the two, towards the
close of his reign. … Luke appears … so far to give the
most precise boundary line to the birth of Jesus, inasmuch as
he brings it into immediate connexion with the first taxing of
Judæa by the Romans, which admits of exact historical
computation. The Roman taxing was indeed the occasion of
Joseph and Mary's journey to Bethlehem, and of the birth of
Jesus in the inn there. This taxing took place, as Luke quite
rightly observes, for the first time in Judæa, under the
Emperor Augustus, and more precisely, under Quirinius'
Governorship of Syria, and moreover, … not only after the
death of Herod, but also after his son Archelaos had been
reigning about ten years, in consequence of the dethronement
of Archelaos and the annexation of Judæa and Samaria by the
Romans in the year 760 A. U. C. 7 A. D. But here too at once
begins the difficulty. According to this statement Jesus would
have been born from ten to fourteen years later than the
Gospels otherwise assert, Luke himself included. This late
birth would not only clash with the first statement of the
Gospels themselves, but equally with all probability, inasmuch
as Jesus would then not have been as much as thirty years old
at his death, which in any case took place before the recall
of the Procurator Pilate (781 A. U. C. 35 A. D.). We are here
therefore compelled to acknowledge a simple error of the
writer. … Once more … does Luke incidentally compute the
time of the birth of Jesus. By describing the time of John the
Baptist's appearance and speaking of Jesus at that period as
about thirty years old, he favours the assumption, that Jesus
was born about thirty years before the fifteenth year of the
reign of the Emperor Tiberius. … We shall … see grounds
for considering the commencement of the Baptist's ministry, as
fixed far too early anywhere near the date 28 A. D. But if
after all we assume the figure, as it stands, the fifteenth
year of Tiberius, reckoning his reign from the 19th of August,
767, or 14 A. D., was the year 781-782, or 28-29 A. D. In that
case Jesus must have been born, reckoning about 30 years
backwards, towards the year 751-752, i. e., 2-3 years before
our reputed era. … Of the later attempts to restore the year
of Jesus' birth, those of antiquity and of modern times claim
our attention in different ways. …
{1920}
Irenæus, followed by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Jerome, gives the
forty-first year of the Emperor Augustus, Clement of
Alexandria the twenty-eighth year of the same, as the year of
birth: much the same in both cases, viz. (751-752), inasmuch
as the former reckons from the first consulate of Augustus
after the death of Cæsar (731 A. U. C.); Clement from his
conquest of Egypt (724). Later authorities since Eusebius, the
first Church historian, marked the forty-second year of
Augustus, following a notice of their predecessors, that is
752-753, which date however Eusebius would make out to agree
with the year of Clement, with the twenty-eighth year from the
occupation of Egypt. But how many other years besides were
possible! Here Sulpicius Severus (400 A. D.) pushed back
beyond the limit set by Irenæus, naming at one time 746-747 as
the time of Jesus' birth, at another the consuls of 750, and
the later date has also been found … by the Arabic Gospel of
the Infancy. Here again the date was shifted lower down than
the figure of Eusebius to the forty-third year of Augustus, i.
e., 753-754. This date is found already in Tertullian in one
reading, though in conflict with the year 41; the Chronograph
of the year 354 puts it down with the express mention of the
Consuls Cæsar and Paulus at 754 A. U. C., the Egyptian monk
Panodorus (400 A. D.) has so reckoned it; and the founder of
the Christian reckoning, the Abbot Dionysius (Easter Table 525
A. D.) introduced it for all time. … What is certain is that
this year 754 A. U. C. 1 A. D., this official Christian
calendar, does not hit the tradition of the Gospels. In modern
times, thanks to the efforts of great astronomers and
chronologists, Kepler, Ideler, and Münter, the year 747 or 748
has found the greatest favour as the year of the Wise Men's
star. But since people have come back from their enthusiasm
for the discovery of this conjunction to a more faithful
regard for the Gospels, it has always commended itself afresh,
to place the birth of Jesus at latest in the first beginning
of the year 750 (4 B. C.), i. e., before the death of King
Herod, but if possible from two to four years earlier still
746-748, or 8-6 B. C. Thus Ewald inclines half to the year
748, and half to 749: Petavius, Usher, Lichtenstein to 749,
Bengal, Anger, Winer, Wieseler to 750, Wurm indeed following
Scaliger to 751, finally in latest times Rösch, attaching
great weight to the statements of the Fathers, as well as to
the Chinese star, actually gets by a multifariously laborious
method, at 751-752, in which year, as he decides, even Herod
must have been alive in spite of Josephus, and on the strength
of an innocuous observation by a Jewish Rabbi. If it was hard
enough to arrive at any certainty, or, at all events,
probability with respect to the year of Jesus' birth, we must
entirely waive all pretensions to tell the month or the day,
however justifiable may be our curiosity on this head. Our
traditional observance of the Day of Jesus on the 25th of
December is not prescribed in any ancient calendar."
Dr. T. Keim,
History of Jesus of Nazara,
volume 2, pages 109-126.
ALSO IN:
W. H. Anderdon,
Fasti Apostolici,
introd.
JEWS: A. D. 26.
Political situation of Judæa
at the time of the appearance of Jesus.
"Let us recall, in a few outlines, the political situation of
Judæa at the exact moment when Jesus appeared before His
countrymen. The shadow of independence, which had been left to
it under the vassal kingdom of Herod the Great, had long
vanished. Augustus had annexed Judæa to the Roman empire, not
by making it one of those senatorial provinces governed by
proconsuls, but as a direct dependant on his authority. He
associated it with the government of Syria, the capital of
which was Antioch, the residence of the imperial legate. In
consequence, however, of its importance, and the difficulties
presented by the complete subjection of such a people, the
procurator of Judæa enjoyed a certain latitude in his
administration; he at the same time managed the affairs of
Samaria, but as a second department, distinct from the first.
Faithful to the wise policy which it had pursued with so much
success for centuries, Rome interfered as little as possible
with the usages and institutions of the conquered province.
The Sanhedrim was, therefore, allowed to continue side by side
with the procurator, but its power was necessarily very
limited. Its jurisdiction was confined to matters of religion
and small civil causes: the procurator alone had the right of
decreeing capital punishment. The high-priestly office had
lost much of its importance. The Asmoneans and Herods had
reduced it to a subordinate magistracy, of which they made a
tool for their own purposes. Herod the Great had constituted
himself guardian of the sacerdotal vestments, under pretext
that he had had them restored to their first magnificence, on
the Levitical model; he bestowed them only on the men of his
choice. The Romans hastened to follow his example, and thus to
keep in their hands an office which might become perilous to
them. The procurator of Judæa resided at Cæsarea. He only came
to Jerusalem for the solemn feasts, or in exceptional cases,
to administer justice. His prætorium stood near the citadel of
Antonia. The Roman garrison in the whole of Palestine did not
exceed one legion. The levying of imposts on movable property,
and on individuals, led to perpetual difficulties; no such
objection was raised to the tribute of two drachms for the
temple, which was levied by the Sanhedrim. The tax-gatherers
in the service of the Romans were regarded as the
representatives of a detested rule; thus the publicans—for
the most part Jews by birth—were the objects of universal
contempt. The first rebellion of any importance took place on

the occasion of the census under Cyrenius. At the period at
which we have arrived, Judæa was governed by Pilate, the third
procurator since the annexation to the empire; he had found in
the high-priestly office John, surnamed Caiaphas, son-in-law
of Annas, the son of Seth, who had for a long time filled the
same office under Valerius Gratus. Pilate had an ally rather
than a rival in the Sadducee Caiaphas, who acted on no higher
principle than the interest of his order, and the maintenance
of his power. Pontius Pilate was wanting in the political tact
which knows how to soften in form the severities of a foreign
rule; he was a man of vulgar ambition, or rather, one of those
men without patriotism, who think only of using their
authority for their own advantage. He took no heed of the
peculiar dispositions and aversions of the people whom he was
to govern. Thus he sent to Jerusalem a Roman garrison with
standards; the Jews regarded this as a horrible profanation,
for the eagles were worshipped as gods.
{1921}
Assailed in his prætorium at Cæsarea by a suppliant crowd,
which no violence could disperse, the procurator was compelled
to yield to prayers, which might soon be changed into
desperate resistance. From that moment his influence was gone
in Judæa; he compromised it still further when he caused
shields of gold, bearing his name engraved beside that of the
emperor Tiberias, to be suspended from the outer walls of the
citadel of Antonia. This flattery to the sovereign, which
might have been unaccompanied with peril elsewhere, was
received at Jerusalem as a gratuitous provocation, and he was
obliged to recall a measure, persistence in which would have
led to a terrible tumult. Having thus made himself an object
of general aversion, he could not even do good without danger:
his plan to build an aqueduct, a thing peculiarly needed on
the burning soil of Judæa, created opposition so violent, that
it could only be put down by force. Under such a governor, the
national passions were in a perpetual state of agitation. This
increase of patriotic fanaticism created great obstacles to a
purely spiritual work like that of Jesus. Gaulonitis, Peræa,
and Galilee still belonged, at this time, to the family of
Herod. The tetrarch Philip governed the north-west of the
country for thirty-seven years, and was distinguished for his
moderation. … Galilee and Peræa were the portion of Herod
Antipas, the murderer of John the Baptist. His divorce from
the daughter of Aretas, after his marriage with Herodias, his
brother's wife, had brought war upon the wide provinces which
he governed. He was about soon to undergo a humiliating
defeat. Like his brother, he was childless. Under the
influence of such a prince, surrounded by a licentious court,
evil propensities had free play, and the corruption of manners
was a bad preparation for a religion of purity and
self-denial. In the lowness of the times, the Herods, though
of the family of the vile despots who had sold the
independence of the Jews, were regarded as in some measure a
national dynasty. They had a party which bore their name, and
which, in religious matters, combined, after the example of
Herod the Great, Pharisaism and Sadduceeism. Such were the
political circumstances in the midst of which Jesus was
placed."
E. de Pressensé,
Jesus Christ: His Times, Life, and Work,
book 3, chapter 1.
JEWS: A. D. 33-100.
The rise and diffusion of Christianity.
See CHRISTIANITY.
JEWS: A. D.66-70.
The Great Revolt.
The oppression of the Jewish nation under the Roman governors
who ruled Judæa directly, after the death of the first Herod
Agrippa (A. D. 44), may not have been heavier in reality than
it had been while the dependent and Romanized tyranny of the
Herodian kings prevailed, but it proved to be more irritating
and exasperating. "The burden, harshly shifted, was felt to be
more galling. The priests and nobles murmured, intrigued,
conspired; the rabble, bolder or more impatient, broke out
into sedition, and followed every chief who offered to lead
them to victory and independence. … It was only indeed under
extraordinary provocation that the populace of the Jewish
capital, who were generally controlled by the superior
prudence of their chiefs, broke into violence in the streets.
… But the ruder independence of the Galileans was not so
easily kept in check. Their tract of heath and mountain was
always then, as it has since always been, in a state of
partial insurrection. … For their coercion [at Jerusalem]
the Romans had invented a peculiar machinery. To Agrippa, the
tetrarch [the second Herod Agrippa], … they had given the
title of King of the Sacrifices, in virtue of which he was
suffered to reside in the palace at Jerusalem, and retain
certain functions, fitted to impose on the imagination of the
more ardent votaries of Jewish nationality. The palace of the
Herods overlooked the Temple, and from its upper rooms the
king could observe all that passed in that mart of business
and intrigue. Placed, however, as a spy in this watch-tower,
he was regarded by the Zealots, the faction of independence,
as a foe to be baffled rather than a chief to be respected and
honoured. They raised the walls of their sanctuary to shut out
his view, and this, among other causes of discontent between
the factions in the city, ripened to an enmity. … And now
was introduced into the divisions of this unhappy people a new
feature of atrocity. The Zealots sought to terrify the more
prudent or time-serving by an organized system of private
assassination. Their 'Sicarii,' or men of the dagger, are
recognised in the records of the times as a secret agency, by
which the most impatient of the patriots calculated on
exterminating the chief supporters of the foreign government.
… Hitherto the Romans, from policy rather than respect, had
omitted to occupy Jerusalem with a military force. They were
now invited and implored by the chiefs of the priesthood and
nobility, and Florus [the Roman governor] sent a detachment to
seize the city and protect the lives of his adherents. This
was the point to which the Zealots themselves had wished to
lead him."
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 59.
A furious battle in the streets of Jerusalem occurred on the
entrance of the Roman troops. The latter gained possession of
the citadel, with the upper city, but, after seven days of
fighting, were forced to capitulate, and were ruthlessly put
to the sword, in violation of sworn pledges. "On that very day
and hour, while the Jews were plunging their daggers in the
hearts of the Romans, a great and terrible slaughter of their
own people was going on in Cæsarea, where the Syrians and
Greeks had risen upon the Jews, and massacred 20,000 of them
in a single day. And in every Syrian city the same madness and
hatred seized the people, and the Jews were ruthlessly
slaughtered in all. No more provocation was needed; no more
was possible. … The heads of the people began the war with
gloomy forebodings; the common masses with the wildest
enthusiasm, which became the mere intoxication of success when
they drove back Cestius from the walls of the city, on the
very eve of his anticipated victory—for Cestius [præfect of
Syria] hastened southwards with an army of 20,000 men, and
besieged the city. The people, divided amongst themselves,
were on the point of opening the gates to the Romans, when, to
the surprise of everybody, Cestius suddenly broke up his camp
and began to retreat. Why he did so, no one ever knew. … The
retreat became a flight, and Cestius brought back his army
with a quarter of its numbers killed. … Vespasian was sent
hastily with a force of three legions, besides the cohorts of
auxiliaries. … Of the first campaign, that in Galilee, our
limits will not allow us to write. …
{1922}
The months passed on, and yet the Romans did not appear before
the walls of the city. This meantime was a prey to internal
evils, which when read appear almost incredible. … The
events at Rome which elevated Vespasian to the throne were the
principal reasons that the siege of Jerusalem was not actually
commenced till the early summer of the year 70, when, in
April, Titus began his march from Cæsarea. … The city,
meanwhile, had been continuing those civil dissensions which
hastened its ruin. John [of Gischala], Simon Bar Gioras, and
Eleazar, each at the head of his own faction, made the streets
run with blood. John, whose followers numbered 6,000, held the
Lower, New, and Middle City; Simon, at the head of 10,000 Jews
and 5,000 Idumeans, had the strong post of the Upper City,
with a portion of the third wall; Eleazar, with 2,000 zealots,
more fanatic than the rest, had barricaded himself within the
Temple itself. … In the sallies which John and Simon made
upon each other all the buildings in this part of the town
were destroyed or set on fire, and all their corn burned; so
that famine had actually begun before the commencement of the
siege."
W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
Jerusalem, the City of Herod and Saladin,
chapters 1-2.
The awful but fascinating story of the siege, as told by
Josephus and repeated by many writers since, is familiar to
most readers and will not be given here. It was prolonged from
April until the 7th of September, A. D. 70, when the Romans
forced their way into the upper city. "They spread through the
streets, slaying and burning as they went. In many houses
where they expected rich plunder, they found nothing but heaps
of putrid bodies, whole families who had died of hunger; they
retreated from the loathsome sight and insufferable stench.
But they were not moved to mercy towards the living; in some
places the flames were actually retarded or quenched with
streams of blood; night alone put an end to the carnage. …
The city was ordered to be razed, excepting the three towers,
which were left as standing monuments of the victory. …
During the whole siege the number killed [according to
Josephus] was 1,100,000, that of prisoners 97,000. In fact,
the population not of Jerusalem alone, but that of the
adjacent districts—many who had taken refuge in the city,
more who had assembled for the feast of unleavened bread—had
been shut up by the sudden formation of the siege." Of those
who survived to the end and were spared, when the Roman
soldiers had tired of slaughter, "all above seventeen years
old were sent to Egypt to work in the mines, or distributed
among the provinces to be exhibited as gladiators in the
public theatres, and in combats against wild beasts. Twelve
thousand died of hunger. … Thus fell, and forever, the
metropolis of the Jewish state. … Of all the stately
city—the populous streets, the palaces of the Jewish kings,
the fortresses of her warriors, the Temple of her God—not a
ruin remained, except the tall towers of Phasaelis, Mariamne,
and Hippicus, and part of the western wall, which was left as
a defence for the Roman camp."
H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 16.
ALSO IN:
H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 7.
Josephus,
The Jewish War.
A. J. Church,
Story of the Last Days of Jerusalem.
I. M. Wise,
History of the Hebrew Second Commonwealth, 7th period.
JEWS: A. D. 70-133.
After the war with Rome.
The state of the surviving people.
"It might have been expected that, from the character of the
great war with Rome, the people, as well as the state of the
Jews, would have fallen into utter dissolution, or, at least,
verged rapidly towards total extermination. Besides the loss
of nearly a million and a half of lives during the war, the
markets of the Roman empire were glutted with Jewish slaves.
… Yet still this inexhaustible race revived before long to
offer new candidates for its inalienable inheritance of
detestation and misery. Of the state of Palestine, indeed,
immediately after the war, we have little accurate
information. It is uncertain how far the enormous loss of
life, and the numbers carried into captivity drained the
country of the Jewish population; or how far the rescript of
Vespasian, which offered the whole landed property of the
province for sale, introduced a foreign race into the
possession of the soil. The immense numbers engaged in the
rebellion during the reign of Hadrian imply, either that the
country was not nearly exhausted, or that the reproduction in
this still fertile region was extremely rapid. In fact, it
must be remembered that … the ravage of war was, after all,
by no means universal in the province. Galilee, Judæa, and
great part of Idumæa were wasted, and probably much
depopulated; but, excepting a few towns which made resistance,
the populous regions and wealthy cities beyond the Jordan
escaped the devastation. The dominions of King Agrippa were,
for the most part, respected. Samaria submitted without
resistance, as did most of the cities on the sea-coast. …
The Jews, though looked upon with contempt as well as
detestation, were yet regarded, during the reign of Vespasian
and his immediate successors, with jealous watchfulness. A
garrison of 800 men occupied the ruins of Jerusalem, to
prevent the reconstruction of the city by the fond and
religious zeal of its former inhabitants. … Still, … it is
impossible, unless communities were suffered to be formed, and
the whole race enjoyed comparative security, that the nation
could have appeared in the formidable attitude of resistance
which it assumed in the time of Hadrian."
H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 18 (volume 2).
JEWS: A. D. 116.
The rising in Trajan's reign.
"Not quite fifty years after the destruction of Jerusalem, in
the year 116, the Jews of the eastern Mediterranean rose
against the imperial government. The rising, although
undertaken by the Diaspora, was of a purely national character
in its chief seats, Cyrene, Cyprus, Egypt, directed to the
expulsion of the Romans as of the Hellenes, and, apparently,
to the establishment of a separate Jewish state. It ramified
even into Asiatic territory, and seized Mesopotamia and
Palestine itself. When the insurgents were victorious they
conducted the war with the same exasperation as the Sicarii in
Jerusalem; they killed those whom they seized. … In Cyrene
220,000, in Cyprus even 240,000 men are said to have been thus
put to death by them. On the other hand, in Alexandria, which
does not appear itself to have fallen into the hands of the
Jews, the besieged Hellenes slew whatever Jews were then in
the city. The immediate cause of the rising is not clear. …
To all appearance it was an outbreak of religious exasperation
of the Jews, which had been growing in secret like a volcano
since the destruction of the temple. …
{1923}
The insurgents were nowhere able to offer resistance to the
compact troops, … and similar punishments were inflicted on
this Diaspora as previously on the Jews of Palestine. That
Trajan annihilated the Jews in Alexandria, as Appian says, is
hardly all incorrect, although perhaps a too blunt expression
for what took place."
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 11 (The Provinces, volume 2).
See, also, CYPRUS, A. D. 117.
JEWS: A. D. 130-134.
The rising in Hadrian's reign.
The Emperor Hadrian, when his tour through the Empire brought
him to Palestine, A. D. 130, resolved to erect the destroyed
holy city of the Jews as a Roman colony with a Roman name, and
to divest it altogether of the character which made it sacred
in the eyes of the Jews. He forbade their sojourn in the new
city, and exasperated them still more by showing favor, it is
said, to the Christian sect. By this and by other measures a
fresh revolt was provoked, A. D. 132, incited by the priest
Eleazar and led by the bandit-chief Barcochebas, or
Bar-Kok-heba ('Son of the Star'). The cruel struggle, redeemed
by no humanity on either side, continued for three years, and
was ended only when hundreds of thousands of Jews had been
slain. "The dispersion of the unhappy race, particularly in
the West, was now complete and final. The sacred soil of
Jerusalem was occupied by a Roman colony, which received the
name of Ælia Capitolina, with reference to the emperor who
founded it [Publius Ælius Hadrianus] and to the supreme God of
the pagan mythology, installed on the desecrated summits of
Zion and Moriah."
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 65.
"The whole body of the Jews at home and abroad was agitated by
the movement and supported more or less openly the insurgents
on the Jordan; even Jerusalem fell into their hands, and the
governor of Syria and indeed the emperor Hadrian appeared on
the scene of conflict. … As in the war under Vespasian no
pitched battle took place, but one place after another cost
time and blood, till at length after a three years' warfare
the last castle of the insurgents, the strong Bether, not far
from Jerusalem, was stormed by the Romans. The numbers handed
down to us in good accounts of 50 fortresses taken, 985
villages occupied, 580,000 that fell, are not incredible,
since the war was waged with inexorable cruelty, and the male
population was probably everywhere put to death. In
consequence of this rising the very name of the vanquished
people was set aside; the province was thenceforth termed, not
as formerly Judaea, but by the old name of Herodotus, Syria of
the Philistines, or Syria Palaestina. The land remained
desolate; the new city of Hadrian continued to exist, but did
not prosper. The Jews were prohibited under penalty of death
from ever setting foot in Jerusalem."
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 11 (The Provinces, volume 2).
JEWS: A. D. 200-400.
The Nation without a country.
Its two governments.
"In less than sixty years after the war under Hadrian, before
the close of the second century after Christ, the Jews present
the extraordinary spectacle of two regular and organized
communities: one under a sort of spiritual head, the Patriarch
of Tiberias, comprehending all of Israelitish descent who
inhabited the Roman empire; the other under the Prince of the
Captivity, to whom all the eastern [Babylonian] Jews paid
their allegiance. … Unfortunately it is among the most
difficult parts of Jewish history to trace the growth of the
patriarchal authority established in Tiberias, and its
recognition by the whole scattered body of the nation, who,
with disinterested zeal, and I do not scruple to add, a noble
attachment to the race of Israel, became voluntary subjects
and tributaries to their spiritual sovereign, and united with
one mind and one heart to establish their community on a
settled basis. It is a singular spectacle to behold a nation
dispersed in every region of the world, without a murmur or
repugnance, submitting to the regulations, and taxing
themselves to support the greatness, of a supremacy which
rested solely on public opinion, and had no temporal power
whatever to enforce its decrees. It was not long before the
Rabbins, who had been hunted down with unrelenting cruelty,
began to creep forth from their places of concealment. The
death of Hadrian, in a few years after the termination of the
war, and the accession of the mild Antoninus, gave them
courage, not merely to make their public appearance, but
openly to reëstablish their schools and synagogues. … The
Rabbinical dominion gradually rose to greater power; the
schools flourished; perhaps in this interval the great
Synagogue or Sanhedrin had its other migrations, … and
finally to Tiberias, where it fixed its pontifical throne and
maintained its supremacy for several centuries. Tiberias, it
may be remembered, was a town built by Herod Antipas, over an
ancient cemetery, and therefore abominated by the more
scrupulous Jews, as a dwelling of uncleanness. But the Rabbins
soon obviated this objection. Simon Ben Jochai, by his
cabalistic art, discovered the exact spot where the
burial-place had been; this was marked off, and the rest of
the city declared, on the same unerring authority, to be
clean. Here, then, in this noble city, on the shore of the sea
of Galilee, the Jewish pontiff fixed his throne; the
Sanhedrin, if it had not, as the Jews pretend, existed during
all the reverses of the nation, was formally reëstablished.
Simon, the son and heir of Gamaliel, was acknowledged as the
Patriarch of the Jews, and Nasi or President of the Sanhedrin.
… In every region of the West, in every province of the
Roman empire, the Jews of all ranks and classes submitted,
with the utmost readiness, to the sway of their Spiritual
Potentate. His mandates were obeyed, his legates received with
honour, his supplies levied without difficulty, in Rome, in
Spain, in Africa. … In the mean time the rival throne in
Babylonia, that of the Prince of the Captivity, was rapidly
rising to the state and dignity which perhaps did not attain
its perfect height till under the Persian monarchs. There
seems to have been some acknowledged hereditary claim in R.
Hona, who now appears as the Prince of the Captivity, as if
his descent from the House of David had been recognized by the
willing credulity of his brethren. … The Court of the
Resch-Glutha [Prince of the Captivity] is described as …
splendid; in imitation of his Persian master, he had his
officers, counsellors, and cupbearers. Rabbins were appointed
as satraps over the different communities. This state, it is
probable, was maintained by a tribute raised from the body of
the people, and substituted for that which, in ancient times,
was paid for the Temple in Jerusalem. … Whether the
authority of the Prince of the Captivity extended beyond
Babylonia and the adjacent districts is uncertain."
H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 19 (volume 2).
{1924}
JEWS: A. D. 415.
Driven from Alexandria by Cyril.
See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 413-415.
JEWS: 5-6th Centuries.
Early Jewish settlements in Europe.
Arian toleration and Catholic persecution.
"The survey of the settlement of the Jews in Europe begins, as
we leave Asia, with the Byzantine Empire. They already lived
in its cities before Christianity acquired the empire of the
world. In Constantinople the Jewish community inhabited a
separate quarter, called the brass-market, where there was
also a large synagogue. They were, however, expelled thence by
an emperor, either Theodosius II., or Justinus II., and the
synagogue was converted into the 'Church of the Mother of
God.' … In Greece, Macedonia, and Illyria the Jews had
already been settled a long time. … In Italy the Jews are
known to have been domiciled as early as the time of the
Republic, and to have been in enjoyment of full political
rights until these were curtailed by the Christian emperors.
They probably looked with excusable pleasure on the fall of
Rome. … When Italy became Ostrogothic under Theodoric, the
position of the Jews in that country was peculiar. Outbreaks
of a spirit of hostility to them were not infrequent during
this reign, but at the bottom they were not directed against
the Jews, but were meant to be a demonstration against this
hated Arian monarch. … Those nations … which were baptised
in the Arian creed betrayed less intolerance of the Jews. Thus
the more Arianism was driven out of Europe and gave way before
the Catholic religion, the more were the Jews harassed by
proselytising zeal. … In spite of the antipathy entertained
against them by the leaders of opinion, the Jews of Italy were
happy in comparison with their brethren of the Byzantine
empire. … Even when the Lombards embraced the Catholic faith
the position of the Jews in Italy remained supportable. The
heads of the Catholic Church, the Popes, were free from savage
intolerance. Gregory I. (590-604), surnamed the great and
holy, who laid the foundation of the power of Catholicism,
gave utterance to the principle, that the Jews should only be
converted by means of persuasion and gentleness, not by
violence. … In the territory which was subject to the Papal
sway, in Rome, Lower Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia, he
steadfastly persisted in this course in the face of the
fanatical bishops, who regarded the oppression of the Jews as
a pious work. … In the west of Europe, in France and Spain,
where the Church was first obliged to make its way
laboriously, the situation of the Jews assumed a different and
much more favourable aspect. … It was a long while before
Catholicism gained a firm footing in the west of Europe, and
the Jews who had settled there enjoyed undisturbed peace until
the victorious Church gained the upper hand. The immigration
of the Jews into these important and wealthy provinces took
place most probably as early as the time of the Republic or of
Cæsar. … The presence of the Jews in the west of Europe is,
however, not certain until the 2d century. The Gaulish Jews,
whose first settlement was in the district of Arles, enjoyed
the full rights of Roman citizenship, whether they arrived in
Gaul as merchants or fugitives, with the pedlar's pack or in
the garb of slaves; they were likewise treated as Romans by
the Frankish and Burgundian conquerors." The Burgundian King
Sigismund, who embraced the Catholic faith in 516, "first
raised the barrier between Jews and Christians. … A spirit
of hostility to the Jews gradually spread from Burgundy over
the Frankish countries. … The later of the Merovingian kings
became more and more bigoted, and their hatred of the Jews
consequently increased. … The Jews of Germany are certainly
only to be regarded as colonies of the Frankish Jews, and such
of them as lived in Austrasia, a province subject to the
Merovingian kings, shared the same fate as their brethren in
France. … While the history of the Jews in Byzance, Italy,
and France, possesses but special interest, that of their
brethren in the Pyrenean peninsula rises to the height of
universal importance. … Jewish Spain contributed almost as
greatly to the development of Judaism as Judæa and Babylonia.
… Cordova, Grenada, and Toledo, are as familiar to the Jews
as Jerusalem and Tiberias, and almost more so than Naherdea
and Sora. When Judaism had come to a standstill in the East,
and had grown weak with age, it acquired new vigour in Spain.
… The first settlement of the Jews in beautiful Hesperia is
buried in dim obscurity. It is certain that they came there as
free men as early as the time of the Roman Republic, in order
to take advantage of the productive resources of this country.
The tortured victims of the unhappy insurrections under
Vespasian, Titus, and Hadrian were also dispersed to the
extreme west, and an exaggerated account relates that 80,000
of them were dragged off to Spain as prisoners. … The Jews
… were unmolested under the Arian kings; … but as soon as
the Catholic Church obtained the supremacy in Spain, and
Arianism began to be persecuted, an unfavourable crisis set in."
H. Graetz,
History of the Jews,
volume 3, chapter 2.
JEWS: A. D. 615.
Siege and capture of Jerusalem by the Persians.
Sack and massacre.
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 615.
JEWS: A. D. 637.
Surrender of Jerusalem to the Moslems.
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 637.
JEWS: 7th Century.
General persecution.
First expulsion from Spain.
In the seventh century, during the reign of the Eastern Roman
Emperor Heraclius (A. D. 610-641) the Jews were subjected to a
more general and bitter persecution than they had experienced
before at the hands of the Christians. "It is said that about
this time a prophecy was current, which declared that the
Roman empire would be overthrown by a circumcised people. This
report may have been spread by the Jews, in order to excite
their own ardour, and assist their projects of rebellion; but
the prophecy was saved from oblivion by the subsequent
conquests of the Saracens. … The conduct of the Jews excited
the bigotry, as it may have awakened the fears, of the
imperial government, and both Phocas and Heraclius attempted
to exterminate the Jewish religion, and if possible to put an
end to the national existence. Heraclius not only practised
every species of cruelty himself to effect this object within
the bounds of his own dominions, but he even made the forced
conversion or banishment of the Jews a prominent feature in
his diplomacy." Thus Heraclius induced Sisebut, the Gothic
king in Spain, and Dagobert, the Frank king, to join him in
forcing baptism on the Jews, with the alternative of flight.
G. Finlay,
Greece under the Romans,
chapter 4, section 5.
{1925}
"Urged by the request and incited by the example of Heraclius,
Sisebuto [or Sisebut] issued an edict in the year 616, that,
within a year, the Jews in Spain should either embrace
Christianity, or should be shorn, scourged, and expelled from
the kingdom, and their property confiscated. … It was a
premium on hypocrisy; for hypocrisy was an instrument of
self-preservation. Ninety thousand Jews made a nominal
submission."
H. Coppée,
Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).
See, also, GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.
JEWS: 7th Century.
The Epoch of the Geonim.
The Exilarchate and the Gaonate.
After the death of the Caliph Othman (A. D. 655), when the
followers of Mohammed were divided into two camps—the
partisans of Ali and the partisans of Moawiyah, "the
Babylonian Jews and Nestorian Christians sided with Ali, and
rendered him their assistance." Prominent among the Jewish
supporters of Ali was Mar-Isaac, the head of a school. "The
unhappy Ali valued this homage, and, doubtless, accorded
privileges to the Jewish head of the school. It is quite
probable that from this time the head of the school of Sora
occupied a certain dignity, and took the title of Gaon. There
were certain privileges connected with the Gaonate, upon which
even the Exilarch—also politically appointed—did not
venture to encroach. Through this there arose a peculiar
relationship between the two entirely opposing offices—the
Exilarchate and the Gaonate. This led to subsequent quarrels.
With Bostanaï [then Exilarch] and Mar-Isaac, the Jewish
officials recognised by the Caliph, there begins a new period
in Jewish history—the Epoch of the Geonim. … For the space
of 40 years (680 to 720), only the names of the Geonim and
Exilarchs are known to us, historical details, however, are
entirely wanting. During this time, through quarrels and
concessions, there arose peculiar relations between the
officials of the Jewish-Persian kingdom, which developed into
a kind of constitution. The Jewish community in Babylonia
(Persia), which had the appearance of a state, had a peculiar
constitution. The Exilarch was at their head, and next to him
stood the Gaon. Both together they formed the unity of the
community. The Exilarch filled political functions. He
represented the Babylonian-Persian Judaism under the Caliphs.
He collected the taxes from the various communities, and paid
them into the treasury. The Exilarchs, both in their outer
appearance and mode of life, were like princes. They drove
about in a state carriage; they had outriders and a kind of
body guard, and received princely homage. The religious unity
of Judaism, on the other hand, was represented in the two
chief schools of Sora and Pumbaditha. They expounded the
Talmud, giving it a practical application; they made new laws
and institutions, and saw that they were carried out, by
allotting punishments for those who transgressed them. The
Exilarch shared the judicial power in common with the Gaon of
Sora and the head of the school of Pumbaditha. … The head of
the school of Sora, however, was alone privileged to be styled
'Gaon'; the head of the school of Pumbaditha did not bear the
title officially. The Gaon of Sora enjoyed general preference
over his colleague of Pumbaditha."
H. Graetz,
History of the Jews,
volume 3, chapter 4.
JEWS: 8th Century.
Conversion of the Khazars to Judaism.
See KHAZARS.
JEWS: 8th Century.
Origin of the Karaites.
See KARAISM.
JEWS: 8-15th Centuries.
Toleration by Moors and Christians in Spain, followed by
merciless persecution and expulsion.
Treatment in Portugal.
"Under the Moorish government in Spain the lot of this
persecuted, tormented people was more tolerable than in any
Christian country. … Under the Christian kings of the 12th
and 13th centuries, they rose to still greater influence as
financial advisers and treasurers, astronomers and physicians;
in Toledo alone they numbered 12,000. … Their condition in
Spain from the time of the Moorish supremacy to the end of the
13th century was upon the whole more favourable than in any
other country of Europe. … The 14th century brought disaster
to the Jews of the Peninsula and elsewhere. … They were
detested by the people; first in one town and then in another
they were attacked and murdered, and their synagogues were
burned down; and at length, in 1391, the storm broke upon them
in all its fury, and raged through the length and breadth of
Spain. … Many thousands were slain; whilst 200,000 saved
themselves by receiving baptism, but it was discovered in a
few years that 17,000 had lapsed into Judaism. A century
later, in 1492, a royal edict commanded all Jews to quit the
country, leaving their goods behind them. As the Inquisition
at the same time forbade the sale of victuals to the Jews, the
majority … were compelled to submit to baptism. Of those who
withdrew into exile—the numbers are variously reckoned from
170,000 to 400,000—the greater part perished from pestilence,
starvation, or shipwreck. The descendants of those who
survived, the Sephardim, found refuge in Italy, and under
Turkish rule in the East, and, for a short space, even in
Portugal. … In Portugal the Jews fared even worse than their
brethren in Spain. … The Inquisition was … introduced as
the approved means for handing over to the exchequer the
wealth of the new Christians."
J. I. von Döllinger,
The Jews in Europe
(Studies in European History, chapter 9).
ALSO IN:
H. C. Lea,
Chapters from the Religious History of Spain,
pages 437-468.
W. H. Prescott,
History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
part 1, chapter 17 (volume 2).
See, also, INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.
JEWS: 11th Century.
First appearance of Jews in England.
Their treatment as usurers.
"Their first appearance in England is said to have been due to
the Conqueror, who brought over a Jewish colony from Rouen to
London. They were special favourites of William Rufus; under
Henry they play a less conspicuous part; but in the next reign
we find them at Lincoln, Oxford, and elsewhere, and there can
be no doubt that they were already established in most of the
chief English towns. They formed, however, no part of the
townsfolk. The Jew was not a member of the state; he was the
king's chattel, not to be meddled with, for good or for evil,
save at the king's own bidding.
{1926}
Exempt from toll and tax and from the fines of justice, he had
the means of accumulating a hoard of wealth which might indeed
be seized at any moment by an arbitrary act of the king, but
which the king's protection guarded with jealous care against
all other interference. The capacity in which the Jew usually
appears is that of a money-lender—an occupation in which the
scruples of the Church forbade Christians to engage, lest they
should be contaminated with the sin of usury. Fettered by no
such scruples, the Hebrew money-lenders drove a thriving
trade."
K. Norgate,
England Under the Angevin Kings,
volume 1, chapter 1.
"The Church declared against capitalism of any kind, branding
it as usury. It became impossible in Angevin England to obtain
the capital for any large scheme of building or organisation
unless the projectors had the capital themselves. Here was the
function which the Jew could perform in England of the twelfth
century, which was just passing economically out of the stage
of barter. Capital was wanted in particular for the change of
architecture from wood to stone with the better classes, and
especially for the erection of castles and monasteries. The
Jews were, indeed, the first in England to possess
dwelling-houses built with stone, probably for purposes of
protection as well as of comfort. And as a specimen of their
influence on monastic architecture, we have it on record that
no less than nine Cistercian monasteries of the North Country
were built by moneys lent by the great Aaron of Lincoln, who
also boasted that he had built the shrine of St. Alban. …
The result of the Church's attitude towards Jews and towards
usury was to put the king into a peculiar relation towards his
Jewish subjects. The Church kept them out of all other
pursuits but that of usury, which it branded as infamous; the
State followed suit, and confiscated the estates of all
usurers dying as such. Hence, as a Jew could only be a usurer,
his estate was always potentially the king's, and could be
dealt with by the king as if it were his own. Yet, strange to
say, it was not to the king's interest to keep the Jews'
wealth in his own hands, for he, the king, as a good
Christian, could not get usury for it, while the Jew could
very soon double and treble it, since the absence of
competition enabled him to fix the rate of interest very high,
rarely less than forty per cent., often as much as eighty. …
The only useful function the Jew could perform towards both
king and people was to be as rich as possible, just as the
larger the capital of a bank, the more valuable the part it
plays in the world of commerce. … The king reaped the
benefit of these riches in several ways. One of his main
functions and main source of income was selling justice, and
Jews were among his best customers. Then he claimed from them,
as from his other subjects, fines and amerciaments for all the
events of life. The Pipe Rolls contain entries of fines paid
by Jews to marry, not to marry, to become divorced, to go a
journey across the sea, to become partners with another Jew,
in short, for all the decisive events of life. And above all,
the king got frequent windfalls from the heirs of deceased
Jews who paid heavy reliefs to have their fathers' charters
and debts, of which, as we have seen, they could make more
profitable use than the king, to whom the Jew's property
escheated not qua Jew, but qua usurer. In the case of Aaron of
Lincoln the king did not disgorge at all at his death, but
kept in his own hands the large treasures, lands, houses and
debts of the great financier. He appears to have first
organised the Jewry, and made the whole of the English Jews
his agents throughout the country. … In addition to these
quasi-regular and normal sources of income from his Jews, the
king claimed from them—again as from his other
subjects—various contributions from time to time under the
names of gifts and tallages. And here he certainly seems, on
occasion at least, to have exercised an unfavourable
discrimination in his demands from the Jews. In 1187, the year
of Aaron of Lincoln's death, he took a tenth from the rest of
England, which yielded £70,000, and a quarter from the Jews,
which gave as much as £60,000. In other words, the Jews were
reckoned to have, at that date, one quarter of the movable
wealth of the kingdom (£240,000 against £700,000 held by the
rest). … They acted the part of a sponge for the Royal
Treasury, they gathered up all the floating money of the
country, to be squeezed from time to time into the king's
treasure-chest. … The king was thus … the sleeping-partner
in all the Jewish usury, and may be regarded as the
Arch-usurer of the kingdom. By this means he was enabled to
bring pressure on any of his barons who were indebted to the
Jews. He could offer to release them of their debt of the
usury accruing to it, and in the case of debts falling into
his hand by the death of a Jew, he could commute the debt for
a much smaller sum. Thus the Cistercian abbeys referred to
above paid Richard I. 1,000 marks instead of the 6,400 which
they had owed to Aaron of Lincoln."
Joseph Jacobs,
The Jews of Angevin England,
introduction.
JEWS: A. D. 1076.
Capture of Jerusalem by the Seljuk Turks.
See CRUSADES: CAUSES, &C.
JEWS: A. D. 1096-1146.
Massacre of Jews in Europe by Crusaders.
The lawless and savage mobs of Crusaders which followed in the
wake of the disorderly hosts of Peter the Hermit and Walter
the Penniless, A. D. 1096, expended their zeal, at the outset
of their march, in hunting and killing Jews. "Acting on the
notion that the infidels dwelling in Europe should be
exterminated before those in Asia should be attacked, [they]
murdered 12,000 Jews. In Treves, many of these unfortunate
men, driven to despair, laid violent hands on their children
and on themselves, and multitudes embraced Christianity, from
which they lapsed the moment the peril had passed. Two hundred
Jews fled from Cologne and took refuge in boats; they were
overtaken and slain. In Mayence, the archbishop, Rudhart, took
them under his protection, and gave them the great hall of his
castle for an asylum; the pilgrims, nevertheless, forced their
way in, and murdered 700 of them in the archbishop's presence.
At Spires the Jews valiantly defended themselves. At Worms
they all committed suicide. At Magdeburg the archbishop,
Ruprecht, amused himself by attacking them during the
celebration of the feast of tabernacles, and by seizing their
property."
W. Menzel,
History of Germany,
chapter 145 (volume 1).
The fervors of the Second Crusade [A. D. 1146] inclined, in
Germany, to the same direction, of Jew-hunting; but St.
Bernard, the apostle of the Crusade, was enlightened and
humane enough to suppress the outrage by his great influence.
{1927}
A monk named Radulf, self-appointed preacher of the Crusade in
Germany, stirred up the people of the cities of the Rhine
against the Jews, and numbers were massacred, notwithstanding
attempts of the emperor, Conrad, to protect them. But Bernard
went in person to the scene, and, by his personal authority,
drove the brutal monk into his convent.
T. Keightley,
The Crusaders
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
H. Graetz,
History of the Jews,
volume 3, chapters 9 and 11.
H. C. Adams,
History of the Jews,
chapter 15.
JEWS: A. D. 1099.
Conquest of Jerusalem by the Crusaders.
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099.
JEWS: 11-17th Centuries.
Alternating toleration and oppression in Poland.
"It cannot be denied that this frugal, careful race formed the
only class of traders in the land [16th-17th centuries]. That
branch of industry which the nobleman despised, owing to pride
or carelessness, and from which the peasant was excluded by
stupidity and ignorance, fell to the share of the Jews. Though
their presence may have been a misfortune for the nation in
after years, they were certainly at the same time a national
necessity. … Perpetually oppressed by capricious laws, the
race raised itself by perseverance and cunning. Ill-treated,
persecuted by fire and sword, still they returned, or others
took their place; robbed and plundered repeatedly, the wealth
of the land was yet theirs. … The first Jewish immigrants
were exiles from Germany and Bohemia. In 1096 they fled to
Poland, where at that time there was more religious tolerance
than in the rest of Europe. The cruelty and greed of the first
crusaders caused this exodus of the Jews. … Casimir the
Great [1333-1370], instigated by his love for Esther, the
beautiful Jewess of Opocno, gave the Jews such civil rights
and privileges as a Polish king could grant, which conduced to
the advantage of the land; but already in the time of Lewis of
Hungary, 1371, they were sentenced to exile. Notwithstanding
this, we find them scattered over the whole of Poland in 1386.
Christians were forbidden on pain of excommunication to have
any intercourse with Jews or to purchase from them. When they
settled in towns they were forced to live in particular
suburbs. … The incredible increase of the Jewish population,
supposed to be three times as rapid as that of the Polish
inhabitants, was very alarming, as the Jews managed to avoid
all public burdens and taxes. Sigismund Augustus [1548-1572]
resolved, in spite of their objections, to impose a poll tax
of one florin per head, and at the same time to discover by
this means their actual number. It was estimated at 200,000,
but only 16,000 florins were paid as tax. Their power was
increased by John Sobiesky, to whom they had prophesied that
he would ascend the throne. He favoured the Jews so much, that
the senate in 1682 implored him to regard the welfare of the
state, and not let the favours of the crown pass through their
hands. The laws forbidding the Jews on pain of death to trade
with the peasants, to keep inns, to sell brandy—laws which
were passed anew in every reign—show that they never ceased
to carry on these trades, so profitable for them, so ruinous
for the peasant."
Count Von Moltke,
Poland:
chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
H. Graetz,
History of the Jews,
volume 4, chapter 18.
JEWS: A. D. 1189.
Massacres in England.
At the time of the accession of Richard Cœur de Lion, king of
England, the crusading spirit had inflamed a specially bitter
hatred of the Jews. Some of the obnoxious people were
imprudent enough to press in among the spectators of King
Richard's coronation. They were driven back with blows; "a
riot ensued, and the Jews' quarter was plundered. A day
elapsed before the king's troops could restore order, and then
only three rioters were punished, for damage done to
Christians. Thus encouraged, or allowed, the frenzy of
persecution spread over the land. Generally it was the country
people who were setting out as pilgrims for Palestine, who
began the crusade at home, while the cities interposed to
preserve the king's peace. But the rumour that the unbelievers
were accustomed to crucify a Christian boy at Easter had
hardened men's hearts against them. The cause of murder and
rapine prevailed in Dunstable, Stamford, and Lincoln. At York,
the viscount allowed 500 Jews to take refuge in the castle.
Fearing, in spite of this, to be given up, they closed the
gates against the king's officers. They were now besieged by
the townsmen, under orders of the viscount, and the defence of
men untrained to arms and without artillery lay only in the
strength of the walls. They offered to ransom their lives, but
the crowd thirsted for blood. Then a rabbi rose up and
addressed his countrymen. 'Men of Israel, hear my words: it is
better for us to die for our law than to fall into the hands
of those who hate it; and our law prescribes this.' Then every
man slew his wife and children, and hurled the corpses over
the battlements. The survivors shut themselves up with their
treasures in the royal chamber, and set fire to it. The crowd
indemnified themselves by sacking the Jews' quarter, and
burning the schedules of their debts, which were kept for
safety in the cathedral."
C. H. Pearson,
History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
volume 1, chapter 32.
ALSO IN:
H. C. Adams,
History of the Jews,
chapter 16.
JEWS: 12-15th Centuries.
Treatment in France.
In France, during the Middle Ages, the extorting of money from
the Jews was one of the devices depended upon for replenishing
the royal treasury. "It is almost incredible to what a length
this was carried. Usury, forbidden by law and superstition to
Christians, was confined to this industrious and covetous
people. … The children of Israel grew rich in despite of
insult and oppression, and retaliated upon their Christian
debtors. If an historian of Philip Augustus may be believed,
they possessed almost one-half of Paris. Unquestionably they
must have had support both at court and in the halls of
justice. The policy of the kings of France was to employ them
as a sponge to suck their subjects' money, which they might
afterwards express with less odium than direct taxation would
incur. Philip Augustus released all Christians in his
dominions from their debts to the Jews, reserving a fifth part
to himself. He afterwards expelled the whole nation from
France. But they appear to have returned again—whether by
stealth, or, as is more probable, by purchasing permission.
St. Louis twice banished and twice recalled the Jews. A series
of alternate persecution and tolerance was borne by this
extraordinary people with an invincible perseverance, and a
talent of accumulating riches which kept pace with their
plunderers; till new schemes of finance supplying the turn,
they were finally expelled under Charles VI. and never
afterwards obtained any legal establishment in France."
H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 2, part 2 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
J. I. von Döllinger,
The Jews in Europe
(Studies in European History, chapter 9).
{1928}
JEWS: 13-14th Centuries.
Hostility of the Papacy and the Church.
Doctrine of the Divine condemnation of the Jews to Slavery.
Claim of the Emperors to ownership of them.
"The declaration by Innocent III. [Pope, 1198-1216] that the
entire nation was destined by God on account of its sins to
perpetual slavery, was the Magna Charta continually appealed
to by those who coveted the possessions of the Jews and the
earnings of their industry; both princes and people acted upon
it. … The succeeding popes took their stand upon the maxims
and behests of Innocent III. If the Jews built themselves a
synagogue, it was to be pulled down; they might only repair
the old ones. No Jew might appear as a witness against a
Christian. The bishops were charged to enforce the wearing of
the distinctive badge, the hat or the yellow garment, by all
the means in their power. The wearing of the badge was
particularly cruel and oppressive, for in the frequent tumults
and risings in the towns the Jews, being thus recognisable at
a glance, fell all the more easily into the hands of the
excited mob; and if a Jew undertook a journey he inevitably
became a prey to the numerous bandits and adventurers, who
naturally considered him as an outlaw. … Where popes failed
to interfere, the councils of the various countries made
amends for the omission; they forbade, for instance, a
Christian letting or selling a house to a Jew, or buying wine
from him. Besides all this, the order was often renewed that
all copies of the Talmud and commentaries upon
it—consequently the greater part of the Jewish
literature—should be burnt. … The new theory as to the Jews
being in a state of slavery was now adopted and enlarged upon
by theologians and canonists. Thomas Aquinas, whose teaching
was received by the whole Roman Church as unassailable,
pronounced that since the race was condemned to perpetual
bondage princes could dispose of the possessions of the Jews
just as they would of their own. A long list of canonical
writers maintained, upon the same ground, the right of princes
and governors to seize upon the sons and daughters of Jews and
have them baptized by force. It was commonly taught, and the
ecclesiastical claim still exists, that a Jewish child once
baptized was not to be left to the father. Meanwhile princes
had eagerly seized upon the papal doctrine that the perpetual
slavery of the Jews was ordained by God, and on it the Emperor
Frederick II. founded the claim that all Jews belonged to him
as Emperor, following the contention prevalent at the time
that the right of lordship over them devolved upon him as the
successor of the old Roman Emperors. … King Albert went so
far as to claim from King Philip of France that the French
Jews should be handed over to him. … From the 14th century
this 'servitude to the state' was understood to mean complete
slavery. 'You yourselves, your bodies and your possessions,
belong,' says the Emperor Charles IV. in a document addressed
to the Jews, 'to us and to the empire; we may act, make and do
with you what we will and please.' The Jews were, in fact,
constantly handed about like merchandise from one to another;
the emperor, now in this place, now in that, declared their
claims for debts to be cancelled; and for this a heavy sum was
paid into his treasury, usually 30 per cent."
J. I. Von Döllinger,
The Jews in Europe
(Studies in European History, chapter 9).
JEWS: A. D. 1290.
Banished from England.
"At the same time [A. D. 1290], the King [Edward I.] banished
all the Jews from the kingdom. Upward of 16,000 are said to
have left England, nor did they reappear till Cromwell
connived at their return in 1654. It is not quite clear why
the King determined on this act of severity, especially as the
Jews were royal property and a very convenient source of
income. It is probable, however, that their way of doing
business was very repugnant to his ideas of justice, while
they were certainly great falsifiers of the coinage, which he
was very anxious to keep pure and true. Earlier in the reign
he had hanged between 200 and 300 of them for that crime, and
they are said to have demanded 60 per cent. for their loans,
taking advantage of the monopoly as money-lenders which the
ecclesiastical prohibition of usury had given them."

J. F. Bright,
History of England, period 1,
page 179.
The expulsion was in compliance with a demand made by
Parliament. "We have no record of any special action or crime
on the part of the Jews which suggested the particular
parliamentary demand in 1290." It had been made four years
before, when, "in one night, all the Jews in England were
flung into prison, and would most likely have been expelled
there and then, had they not outbribed the King with £12,000."
G. H. Leonard,
Expulsion of the Jews by Edward I.
(Royal History Society Transactions,
new series, volume 5, 1891).
JEWS: A. D. 1321.
Persecution of Lepers and Jews.
"In the year 1321, a general rumour prevailed through Europe
that the unhappy beings afflicted with leprosy (a disease with
which the Crusaders had become infected in the East …) had
conspired to inoculate all their healthy fellow-creatures with
their own loathsome malady. … The King of Grenada and the
Jews were denounced as the prime movers of this nefarious plot
directed to the extermination of Christianity; and it was said
that the latter, unable to overcome the many impediments which
opposed their own agency, had bribed the lepers to become
their instruments. This 'enormous Creed,' in spite of its
manifold absurdities, found easy admission; and, if other
evidence were wanting for its support, torture was always at
hand to provide confessions. Philip V. [of France] was among
the firmest believers, and therefore among the most active
avengers of the imaginary crime; and he encouraged persecution
by numerous penal edicts. At Toulouse, 160 Jews were burned
alive at once on a single pile, without distinction of sex,
and, as it seems, without any forms of previous examination.
In Paris, greater gentleness was manifested; those only were
led to the stake from whom an avowal of guilt could be
extorted."
E. Smedley,
History of France,
part 1, chapter 8.
{1929}
"The lord of Parthenay writes word to the king that 'a great
leper,' arrested on his territory, has confessed that a rich
Jew had given him money, and supplied him with drugs. These
drugs were compounded of human blood, of urine, and of the
blood of Christ (the consecrated wafer), and the whole, after
having been dried and pounded, was put into a bag with a
weight and thrown into the springs or wells. Several lepers
had already been provisionally burnt in Gascony, and the king,
alarmed at the new movement which was originating, hastily
returned from Poitou to France, and issued an ordinance for
the general arrest of the lepers. Not a doubt was entertained
by anyone of this horrible compact between the lepers and the
Jews. 'We ourselves,' says a chronicler of the day, 'have seen
with our own eyes one of these bags, in Poitou, in a burgh of
our own vassalage.' … The king ordered all found guilty to
be burnt, with the exception of those female lepers who
happened to be pregnant. The other lepers were to be confined
to their lazarettos. As to the Jews, they were burnt
indiscriminately, especially in the South."
J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 5, chapter 5 (volume 1).
JEWS: A. D. 1348-1349.
Accused of causing the Black Plague.
On the appearance in Europe, A. D. 1348, of the pestilence
known as the Black Death, "there was a suspicion that the
disease was due to human agencies, and, as usual, the Jews
were asserted to have contrived the machinations by which the
calamity was created. They were charged with poisoning the
wells, and through France, Switzerland, and Germany, thousands
of these unhappy people were destroyed on evidence derived
from confessions obtained under torture. As far as he could,
the Emperor Charles IV. protected them. They escaped
persecution too in the dominions of Albrecht of Austria. It is
said that the great number of the Jewish population in Poland
is due to the fact that Casimir the Great was induced by the
entreaties of one Esther, a favourite Jewish mistress of that
monarch, to harbour and shelter them in his kingdom. It should
be mentioned that Clement VI. forbad the persecution of the
Jews at Avignon."
J. E. T. Rogers,
History of Agriculture and Prices,
volume 1, chapter 15.
ALSO IN:
H. Graetz,
History of the Jews,
volume 4, chapter 4.
JEWS: A. D. 1391.
Massacre and expulsion from Spain.
See above: 8TH-15TH CENTURIES;
also, INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.
JEWS: A. D. 1492.
Expulsion of Jews from Spain.
See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.
JEWS: 17th Century.
Toleration in Holland.
Attractiveness of that country to wealthy Israelites.
See NETHERLANDS A. D. 1621-1633.
JEWS: A. D. 1655.
Toleration in England by Cromwell.
"Wednesday, Dec. 12, 1655. This day, 'in a withdrawing room at
Whitehall,' presided over by his Highness [the Lord Protector,
Oliver Cromwell], who is much interested in the matter, was
held 'a Conference concerning the Jews';—of which the modern
reader too may have heard something. Conference, one of Four
Conferences, publicly held, which filled all England with
rumour in those old December days; but must now contract
themselves into a point for us. Highest official Persons, with
Lord Chief Barons, Lord Chief Justices, and chosen Clergy have
met here to advise, by reason, Law-learning,
Scripture-prophecy, and every source of light for the human
mind, concerning the proposal of admitting Jews, with certain
privileges as of alien-citizens, to reside in England. They
were banished near Four-hundred years ago: shall they now be
allowed to reside and trade again? The Proposer is Manasseh
Ben Israel,' a learned Portuguese Jew of Amsterdam; who, being
stirred up of late years by the great things doing in England,
has petitioned one and the other, Long Parliament and Little
Parliament, for this object; but could never, till his
Highness came into power, get the matter brought to a hearing.
And so they debate and solemnly consider; and his Highness
spake;—and says one witness, 'I never heard a man speak so
well.' His Highness was eager for the scheme, if so might be.
But the Scripture-prophecies, Law-learnings, and lights of the
human mind seemed to point another way: zealous Manasseh went
home again; the Jews could not settle here except by private
sufferance of his Highness."
T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 9, letter 207.
"Cromwell … was able to overcome neither the arguments of
the theologians, nor the jealousies of the merchants, nor the
prejudices of the indifferent; and seeing that the conference
was not likely to end as he desired, he put an end to its
deliberations. Then, without granting the Jews the public
establishment which they had solicited, he authorized a
certain number of them to take up their residence in London,
where they built a synagogue, purchased the land for a
burial-ground, and quietly commenced the formation of a sort
of corporation, devoted to the Protector, on whose tolerance
their safety entirely depended."
F. P. Guizot,
History of Oliver Cromwell,
book 6 (volume 2).
JEWS: A. D. 1662-1753.
Condition in England.
Defeated attempt to legalize their naturalization.
"The Jews … were not formally authorised to establish
themselves in England till after the Restoration. The first
synagogue in London was erected in 1662. … There does not
appear … to have been any legal obstacle to the sovereign
and Parliament naturalising a Jew till a law, enacted under
James I., and directed against the Catholics, made the
sacramental test an essential preliminary to naturalisation.
Two subsequent enactments exempted from this necessity all
foreigners who were engaged in the hemp and flax manufacture,
and all Jews and Protestant foreigners who had lived for seven
continuous years in the American plantations. In the reign of
James II. the Jews were relieved from the payment of the alien
duty, but it is a significant fact that it was reimposed after
the Revolution at the petition of the London merchants. In the
reign of Anne some of them are said to have privately
negotiated with Godolphin for permission to purchase the town
of Brentford, and to settle there with full privileges of
trade; but the minister, fearing to arouse the spirit of
religious intolerance and of commercial jealousy, refused the
application. The great development of industrial enterprise
which followed the long and prosperous administration of
Walpole naturally attracted Jews, who were then as now
preeminent in commercial matters, and many of them appear at
this time to have settled in England,"—among others, the
family of Disraeli. In 1753, the Pelhams attempted to legalise
the naturalisation of Jews; "not to naturalise all resident
Jews, but simply to enable Parliament to pass special Bills to
naturalise those who applied to it, although they had not
lived in the colonies or been engaged in the hemp or flax
manufacture. …
{1930}
The opponents of the ministry raised the cry that the Bill was
an unchristian one, and England was thrown into paroxysms of
excitement scarcely less intense than those which followed the
impeachment of Sacheverell. There is no page in the history of
the 18th century that shows more decisively how low was the
intellectual and political condition of English public
opinion. According to its opponents, the Jewish Naturalisation
Bill sold the birthright of Englishmen for nothing, it was a
distinct abandonment of Christianity, it would draw upon
England all the curses which Providence had attached to the
Jews. The commercial classes complained that it would fill
England with usurers. … The clergy all over England
denounced it." After fierce opposition, the bill was finally
passed; "but as the tide of popular indignation rose higher
and higher, the ministers in the next year brought forward and
carried its repeal."
W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England, 18th Century,
chapter 2 (volume 1).
JEWS: A. D. 1727-1880.
Persecutions and restrictions in Russia.
The Pale.
"The refugees from the Ukraine who had settled in Little
Russia were expelled in 1727. No Jews from without were
allowed to enter Russia upon any pretext. The few physicians
and other professional men of the excluded race who did manage
to remain in Russia were in continual jeopardy of insult and
expulsion. Over and over again Russian statesmen who were
anxious to develop the resources and trade possibilities of
their backward and barbarous land, hinted at the advisability
of bringing in some Jews. The Imperial will was resolutely
opposed. … When the broad-minded Catherine II ascended the
throne these efforts were renewed, but she too resisted them,
and says in her Memoirs, 'their admission into Russia might
have occasioned much injury to our small tradesmen.' She was
too deeply bitten with the Voltairean philosophy of her time
to have, or even assume, any religious fervour in the matter,
but though in 1786 she issued a high-sounding edict
'respecting the protection of the rights of Jews of Russia,'
the persecution on economic and social grounds continued
unabated. By this time it will be seen the laws did, however,
recognise the existence of Jews in Russia. The explanation is
that the first partition of Poland and the annexation of the
great Turkish territory lying between the Dnieper and the
Dniester had brought into the empire such a vast Hebraic
population that any thought of expulsion was hopeless. … The
rape of Poland and the looting of Turkey had brought two
millions of Jews under the sceptre of the Czar. The fact could
not be blinked. They were there—inside the Holy Empire, whose
boast for centuries had been that no circumcised dog could
find rest for his foot on its sanctified territory. To an
autocracy based so wholly on an orthodox religion as is that
of the Czars, this seemed a most trying and perplexing
problem. The solution they hit upon was to set aside one part
of the empire as a sort of lazar house, which should serve to
keep the rest of it from pollution. Hence we get the Pale.
Almost every decade since 1786, the date of Catherine's ukase,
has witnessed some alteration made in the dimensions and
boundaries of this Pale. Now it has been expanded, now sharply
contracted. … To trace these changes would be to
unnecessarily burden ourselves with details. It is enough to
keep in mind that the creation of the Pale was Russia's
solution of the Jewish problem in 1786, and is still the only
one it can think of. Side by side with this naïve notion that
Holy Russia could be kept an inviolate Christian land in the
eyes of Heaven by juggling the map, there grew up the more
worldly conception of turning the Jew to account as a kind of
milch cow. … In 1819 Jewish brandy distillers were allowed
to go into the interior and settle 'until,' as the ukase said,
'Russian master distillers shall have perfected themselves in
the art of distilling.' They availed themselves of this
permission in great numbers, and at the end of seven years
were all summarily driven out again, a new ukase explaining
that 'the number of Christian distillers was now sufficient.'
… The past century's history of the Jews in Russia is made
up of conflicts between these two impulses in the childlike
Slavonic brain—the one to drive the heretic Jew into the Pale
as into a kennel with kicks and stripes, the other guardedly
to entice him out and manage to extract some service or profit
from him. … In 1825 Nicholas ascended the throne. Within a
year he had earned from the Jews that sinister title of 'The
Second Haman,' by which Israel still recalls him. … With the
death of Nicholas [1855] and the advent of Alexander II a new
era dawned. Dr. Mackenzie Wallace has drawn a spirited and
comprehensive picture of the literal stampede all Russia made
to reform everything. … Almost the first thing the young
Czar did was to revive a commission to inquire into the
condition of the Jews, which Nicholas had decreed in 1840 and
then allowed to lapse. This commission sent out a list of
inquiries to all the Provincial Governors. These gentlemen
returned voluminous reports, all, without exception,
favourable to the Jews. … Upon the strength of these reports
were issued the ukases of 1859, 1861, and 1865, … by which
Jews of the first mercantile guild and Jewish artisans were
allowed to reside all over the Empire. It is just as well to
remember that even these beneficent concessions, which seem by
contrast with what had gone before to mark such a vast forward
step in Russo-Jewish history, were confessedly dictated by
utilitarian considerations. The shackles were stricken only
from the two categories of Jews whose freedom would bring
profit to Russia. … Still, the quarter century following
Alexander II's accession in 1855 fairly deserves its
appellation of the 'golden age' when what preceded it is
recalled."
H. Frederic,
The New Exodus,
chapters 4-5.
See, also, JEWS: 19TH CENTURY.
JEWS: A. D. 1740.
Rise of the modern Chasidim.
See CHASIDIM.
JEWS: A. D. 1791.
The French Revolutionary emancipation.
"It is to the French Revolution that the Jews owe their
improved position in the modern world. That prolific parent of
good and evil has at least deserved well of them. It was the
first to do justice, full and unequivocal, to those whom every
other great political movement passed over as too
insignificant or too contemptible to be taken into account.
Mirabeau and the Abbé Grégoire, the one in his desire to
secularise the State, the other in his policy of
Christianising the Revolution, as our historian Graetz puts
it, both urged on a movement which, in an incredibly short
space of time, succeeded in effecting the complete
emancipation of all the Jews under the rule of the Republic.
On the 17th September, 1791, the National Assembly decreed the
abolition of every exceptional enactment previously in force
against them, and thus made them by law what they had
previously been in heart, citizens of their country.
{1931}
He who started as the child, afterwards to become the master,
of the Revolution, proclaimed the same great principles of
religious equality wherever his victorious eagles penetrated.
Since that dawn of a better time, the light has spread more
and more, though even now [1890] it is only here and there
that it has shone forth unto the perfect day."
S. Singer,
Jews in their Relation to Other Races
(National Life and Thought, chapter 20).
JEWS: A. D. 1846-1858.
Removal of disabilities in England.
"In 1846 the Act of Parliament was formally repealed which
compelled Jews living in England to wear a distinctive dress.
The law had, however, been in abeyance for nearly two
centuries. About this time also the Jews were admitted to the
privileges of the naturalization laws; and in 1858 the House
of Commons by resolution altered the form of oath tendered to
all its members. As it had stood up to this time, Jews were
prevented from voting in the divisions, although a Jew could
take his seat in the House when sent there by a constituency."
E. Porritt,
The Englishman at Home,
chapter 9.
JEWS: 19th Century.
The Anti-Semite movement.
Later persecution of the Jews in Russia.
"Among the strange and unforeseen developments that have
characterized the fourth quarter of the nineteenth century,
few are likely to be regarded by the future historian with a
deeper or more melancholy interest than the anti-Semite
movement, which has swept with such a portentous rapidity over
a great part of Europe. It has produced in Russia by far the
most serious religious persecution of the century. It has
raged fiercely in Roumania, the other great centre of the
Oriental Jews. In enlightened Germany it has become a
considerable parliamentary force. In Austria it counts among
its adherents men of the highest social station. Even France,
which from the days of the Revolution has been specially
distinguished for its liberality to the Jews, has not escaped
the contagion. … It is this movement which has been the
occasion of the very valuable work of M. Anatole
Leroy-Beaulieu on 'Israel among the Nations.' The author, who
is universally recognized as one of the greatest of living
political writers, has special qualifications for his task.
With an exceedingly wide knowledge of the literature relating
to his subject he combines much personal knowledge of the Jews
in Palestine and in many other countries, and especially in
those countries where the persecution has most furiously
raged. That persecution, he justly says, unites in different
degrees three of the most powerful elements that can move
mankind—the spirit of religious intolerance; the spirit of
exclusive nationality; and the jealousy which springs from
trade or mercantile competition. Of these elements M.
Leroy-Beaulieu considers the first to be on the whole the
weakest. In that hideous Russian persecution which 'the New
Exodus' of Frederic has made familiar to the English reader,
the religious element certainly occupies a very leading place.
Pobedonosteff, who shares with his master the chief guilt and
infamy of this atrocious crime, belongs to the same type as
the Torquemadas of the past, and the spirit that animates him
has entered largely into the anti-Semite movement in other
lands. … Another element to which M. Leroy-Beaulieu attaches
considerable importance is the Kultur Kampf in Germany. When
the German Government was engaged in its fierce struggle with
the Catholics, these endeavored to effect a diversion and to
avenge themselves on papers, which were largely in the hands
of Jews, by raising a new cry. They declared that a Kultur
Kampf was indeed needed, but that it should be directed
against the alien people who were undermining the moral
foundations of Christian societies; who were the implacable
enemies of the Christian creed and of Christian ideals. The
cry was soon taken up by a large body of Evangelical
Protestants. … Still more powerful, in the opinion of our
author, has been the spirit of intense and exclusive
nationality which has in the present generation arisen in so
many countries and which seeks to expel all alien or
heterogeneous elements, and to mould the whole national being
into a single definite type. The movement has been still
further strengthened by the greater keenness of trade
competition. In the midst of many idle, drunken and ignorant
populations the shrewd, thrifty and sober Jew stands
conspicuous as the most successful trader. His rare power of
judging, influencing and managing men, his fertility of
resource, his indomitable perseverance and industry
continually force him into the foremost rank and he is
prominent in occupations which excite much animosity. The
tax-gatherer, the agent, the middleman, and the money-lender
are very commonly of Jewish race and great Jewish capitalists
largely control the money markets of Europe at a time when
capital is the special object of socialistic attacks."
W. E. H. Lecky,
Israel among the Nations
(The Forum, December, 1893).
"Until 1881 the lives and property of Jews had been respected.
Their liberties were restricted, not obsolete. In that year
all was changed. The Pale of Settlement, especially in the
South, became a centre of riot. Crimes were charged against,
and violence was offered to, those who had no means of
retaliation; and whose only defence was passive endurance. The
restlessness of the country, the low moral tone of the most
ignorant and unreasonable peasantry in the world, commercial
jealousy, and official intrigues were responsible for the
outbreak. The Jews had thriven; that was a crime. As the
Government had refused them the privileges of citizenship,
they had no right to rise above their neighbours. A rescript,
for which General Ignatieff was responsible, took cognisance,
not of the sufferings of the Jews, but of the condition of the
Christians. Commissioners … were appointed, in all towns
inhabited by Jews, to inquire
(1) into the manner of mal-practices by which the presence of
Jews became injurious to the Christian population;
(2) into the best methods of preventing Jews from evading old
restrictions;
(3) what new laws were required to stop the pernicious conduct
of Jews in business.
The inquiry resulted in the May Laws of 1882. These laws,
which were so severe that hesitation was felt in applying them
throughout the Pale, were supposed to be of only temporary
application. They were known as laws for the time, and only
came into full operation in 1890. … The May Laws define the
Jews' duties to the State. These consist of military service,
and pecuniary contributions.
{1932}
In common with all Russians, Jews are subject to the Law of
Conscription. Unlike Christians, they may not provide a
substitute. They may not follow any trade, or profession,
until they have produced evidence of registration in the
recruiting district. While subject to military service, Jews
cannot rise higher than the rank of non-commissioned officer.
… The journal of statistics gives the proportion of Jews to
the population as 3.95 per cent., whereas the percentage on
the conscription rolls is 5.80. Thus the Hebrew is ground
between the upper and nether millstone. … In December 1890
Russians were forbidden to sell, lease, or mortgage real
estate to Jews throughout the Empire, a measure hitherto
applied only to Poland. Where Jews have acquired such property
they will be compelled to dispose thereof. The Jewish
artisans, apothecaries' assistants, dentists, and midwives,
with all apprentices, are to be expelled from all places
outside the Pale. Exceptions to this are obtainable only by
special permission from the Minister of the Interior. Even
then the children of such must be removed to the Pale as soon
as they come of age, or marry an unprivileged Jew. This Pale
of Settlement, which stretches along the frontier, from the
Baltic to the Black Sea, is a hell of seething wretchedness.
Here five millions of Jews are compelled to live, and die, in
a Ghetto of filth and misery, mocked with a feast of Tantalus.
Beyond are lands where corn rots for lack of ingatherers; yet
they are cabined and confined. Inability to bribe a corrupt
mass of administrators has led to the expulsion of poor Jews
from villages within the Pale, into crowded towns, such as
Tchernizo, where the population has consequently risen from
5,000 to 20,000. … In September [1890] the Jews were
expelled from Trans-caspian territory; in October, Jews, not
having the right to live in St. Petersburg, were ordered to be
transferred, with their families, to their proper places of
abode; in January the Jews were ordered to be expelled from
the Terke region of the Caucasus; in February the Jews in
Novgorod were expelled. It has been declared expedient to
expel them from the Cossack Stanitzas of the Caucasus. Three
years ago the Jews were forbidden to live on Crown lands.
Eighty-seven families were recently ordered to leave Saraka
districts; because they had settled there after the passing of
the Ignatieff laws. Artisans are henceforth to be confined to
limits of residence within the Pale. It is the same with
millers; therefore mills are idle, and the price of corn has
declined. In Courland and Livonia, descendants of Jewish
families, which were established when those provinces were
incorporated into Russia, may remain; but no others may
settle. … Jews who have lived eight years in a village may
be interned therein, and may not move, even walking distance,
without leave. Jews leaving one village for another lose their
rights, and must go to the Ghetto of the nearest town. This is
practically a sentence of death. Executions are going on, not
upon scaffolds, but in dusky Ghettos, where the victims of
oppression pine without hope in the world."
C. N. Barham,
Persecution of the Jews in Russia
(Westminster Review, volume 136, 1891), pages 139-144.
ALSO IN:
Persecution of the Jews in Russia:
issued by the Russo-Jewish Committee;
D. F. Schloss,
Persecution of the Jews in Roumania.
----------JEWS: End----------
JEYPORE, OR JEYPOOR.
See RAJPOOTS.
JEZIREH, Al.
See MESOPOTAMIA.
JEZREEL, Battle of.
See MEGIDDO.
JINGIZ-KHAN, The conquests of.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227;
and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.
JINGOES.
See TURKS: A. D. 1878 EXCITEMENT IN ENGLAND.
JIVARA, OR JIVARO, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
JOACHIM I.,
Elector of Brandenburg, A. D. 1499-1535.
Joachim II., Elector of Brandenburg, 1535-1571.
Joachim Frederick, Elector of Brandenburg, 1598-1608.
JOAN OF ARC, The mission of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.
JOANNA,
Queen of Castile, A. D. 1504-1555.
Joanna I., Queen of Naples, 1343-1381.
Joanna II., Queen of Naples, 1414-1435.
JOGLARS.
See TROUBADOURS.
JOHN
(of Brienne), Latin Emperor at Constantinople
(Romania), A. D. 1228-1237.
John (of Luxemburg), King of Bohemia, A. D. 1310-1346.
John, King of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, 1481-1513.
John, King of England, 1199-1216.
John (Don) of Austria: His victories over the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571,
and 1572-1573.
In the Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577, and 1577-1581.
John, Elector of Brandenburg, 1486-1499.
John (called The Fearless), Duke of Burgundy, 1404-1418.
John I., King of Aragon, 1387-1395.
John I., King of Castile and Leon, 1379-1390.
John I., nominal King of France
(an infant who lived seven days), 1316.
John I., King of Navarre, 1441-1479;
John II., of Aragon, 1458-1479;
John I., of Sicily, 1458-1479.
John I., King of Portugal, 1383-1433.
John I., King of Sicily, 1458-1479.
John II. (Comnenus),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine or Greek), 1118-1143.
John II., King of Castile and Leon, 1407-1454.
John II. (called The Good), King of France, 1350-1364.
John II., King of Portugal, 1481-1495.
John III. (Vataces), Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1222-1255.
John III., King of Portugal, 1521-1557.
John III., King of Sweden, 1568-1592.
John IV., Pope, 640-642.
John IV. (Lascaris), Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1259-1260.
John IV., King of Portugal, 1640-1656.
John V., Pope, 685-686.
John V. (Cantacuzene),
Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1342-1355.
John V., King of Portugal, 1706-1750.
John VI., Pope, 701-705.
John VI. (Palæologus),
Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1355-1391.
John VI., King of Portugal, 1816-1826.
John VII., Pope, 705-707.
John VII.
(Palæologus), Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1425-1448.
John VIII., Pope, 872-882.
John IX., Pope, 898-900.
John X., Pope, 914-928.
John XI., Pope, 931-936.
John XII., Pope, 956-964.
John XIII., Pope, 965-972.
John XIV., Pope, 983-984.
John XV., Pope, 985-996.
John XVI., Antipope, 997-998.
John XVII., Pope, 1003, June to December.
John XVIII., Pope, 1003-1009.
John XIX., Pope, 1024-1033.
John XXI. (so styled, though 20th of the name),
Pope, 1276-1277.
John XXII., Pope, 1316-1334.
John XXIII., Pope, 1410-1410.
John Albert, King of Poland, 1493-1501.
John d'Albret and Catherine,
King and Queen of Navarre, 1503-1512.
John Balliol, King of Scotland, 1292-1296.
John Casimir, King of Poland, 1648-1668.
John Chrysostom and the Empress Eudoxia.
See ROME: A. D. 400-518.
John George, Elector of Brandenburg, 1571-1598.
John Sigismund, Elector of Brandenburg, 1608-1619.
John Sobieski, King of Poland, 1674-1697.
John Swerkerson, King of Sweden, 1216-1222.
John Zimisces, Emperor in the East
(Byzantine, or Greek), 969-976.
{1933}
JOHN COMPANY, The.
A name applied to the English East India Company.
See INDIA: A. D. 1858.
JOHNNIES.
See BOYS IN BLUE.
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1867.
JOHNSON, Andrew:
Military Governor of Tennessee.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MARCH-JUNE).
Election to the Vice Presidency.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY-NOVEMBER).
Succession to the Presidency.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 15TH).
Reconstruction Policy.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY),
to 1866-1867 (OCTOBER-MARCH).
Impeachment of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868 (MARCH-MAY).
JOHNSON, Sir William, and the Six Nations.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.
JOHNSON-CLARENDON CONVENTION.
See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1869.
JOHNSTON, General Albert Sidney.
Command of Confederate forces in the west.
Battle of Shiloh.
Death.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE),
and (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).
JOHNSTON, General Joseph E.
At the first Battle of Bull Run.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JULY: VIRGINIA).
Command in northern Virginia.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-APRIL: VIRGINIA).
Command on the Peninsula.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA),
to (MAY: VIRGINIA).
Command in the west.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
Command in Georgia.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863-1864
(DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).
The Atlanta campaign.
Relieved of command.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(MAY: GEORGIA), and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).
Command in the Carolinas.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865
(FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).
Surrender.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 26TH).
JOHNSTOWN FLOOD, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.
JOINT HIGH COMMISSION.
See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1869-1871.
JOLIET'S EXPLORATIONS.
See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.
JOMSBORG.
Jomsborg, a stronghold at the mouth of the Oder, became, in
the later part of the 10th and early part of the 11th
centuries, a noted fastness of the piratical heathen Danes,
who found there "a secure refuge from the new religion and the
civilization it brought with it," which their country was then
submitting to. They founded at Jomsborg "a state to which no
man might belong save on proof of courage, where no woman
might enter within the walls, and where all booty was in
common."
J. R. Green,
The Conquest of England,
pages 366-367.
"The impregnable castle of a certain body corporate, or
'Sea-Robbery Association (limited),' which, for some
generations, held the Baltic in terror, and plundered far
beyond the Belt—in the ocean itself, in Flanders and the
opulent trading havens there,—above all, in opulent anarchic
England, which, for forty years from about this time, was the
pirates' Goshen; and yielded, regularly every summer, slaves,
danegelt, and miscellaneous plunder, like no other country
Jomsburg or the viking-world had ever known."
T. Carlyle,
Early Kings of Norway,
chapter 5.
The pirate-nest at Jomsborg was broken up, about the middle of
the tenth century, by Magnus the Good, of Norway.
JONES, John Paul, Naval exploits of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776;
and 1779 (SEPTEMBER).
JONESBORO', Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).
JONGLEURS.
See TROUBADOURS.
JOPPA.
See JAFFA.
JOSEPH,
King of Portugal, A. D. 1750-1777.
Joseph I.,
King of Hungary, 1687-1711;
King of Bohemia and Germanic Emperor, 1705-1711.
Joseph II., King of Hungary and Bohemia,
and Germanic Emperor, 1765-1790.
Joseph Bonaparte,
King of Naples, 1806-1808;
King of Spain, 1808-1812.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER);
and SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER), to 1812-1814.
JOSEPHINE, Empress, Napoleon's divorce from.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.
JOTAPATA, Siege of.
The Jewish city of Jotapata, defended by the historian
Josephus, was besieged by Vespasian for forty-seven days, A.
D. 67, and taken.
Josephus,
Jewish War,
book 3, chapter 7-8.
JOUBERT, Campaigns of.
See FRANCE: A. D.1796-1797(OCTOBER-APRIL);
1798-1799; 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).
JOURDAN, Campaigns of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793(JULY-DECEMBER);
1794 (MARCH-JULY); 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER);
1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER); 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).
JOUST.
See TOURNEY.
JOVIAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 363-364.
JOVIANS AND HERCULIANS.
See PRÆTORIAN GUARDS: A. D. 312.
JOYOUS ENTRY OF BRABANT, The.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D.1559-1562.
JUAN.
See JOHN.
JUAREZ, The Mexican government of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1848-1861, to 1867-1888.
JUBILEE, Papal institution of the.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.
JUDAH, Kingdom of.
See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL, AND JUDAH, and after.
JUDAS MACCABÆUS.
See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.
JUDGES OF ISRAEL.
See JEWS: ISRAEL UNDER THE JUDGES.
JUDGMENT OF GOD.
See ORDEAL; also, WAGER OF BATTLE.
{1934}
JUDICIAL COMBAT.
See WAGER OF BATTLE.
JUGANTES, The.
See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.
JUGERUM.
"A Roman jugerum [of land] was somewhat less than two-thirds
of a statute acre."
W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 7, footnote (volume 1).
JUGURTHINE WAR, The.
See NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.
JULIAN (called The Apostate),
Roman Emperor, A. D. 361-363.
Restorer of Paganism.
See ROME: A. D. 361-363.
JULIAN CALENDAR.
JULIAN ERA.
See CALENDAR, JULIAN.
JULIAN FAMILY, The.
"The Julian Family is that of the dictator Cæsar; his name was
transmitted, by adoption, out of the direct line, but always
within the circle of his kindred, to the five first heads of
the Roman empire; Augustus reigned from the year 30 B. C. to
the year 14 of our era; Tiberius, from 14 to 37 A. D.;
Caligula, from 37 to 41; Claudius, from 41 to 54; Nero, from
54 to 68."
J. C. L. Sismondi,
Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 2.
JULIAN LAW, The.
See ROME: B. C. 90-88.
JULIAN LAWS, The.
"Cæsar [during his year of consulship, B. C. 59, before he
went to Gaul] carried, with the help of the people, the body
of admirable laws which are known to jurists as the 'Leges
Juliæ,' and mark an epoch in Roman history. … There was a
law declaring the inviolability of the persons of magistrates
during their term of authority, reflecting back on the murder
of Saturninus, and touching by implication the killing of
Lentulus and his companions. There was a law for the
punishment of adultery, most disinterestedly singular if the
popular accounts of Cæsar's habits had any grain of truth in
them. There were laws for the protection of the subject from
violence, public or private; and laws disabling persons who
had laid hands illegally on Roman citizens from holding office
in the Commonwealth. There was a law, intended at last to be
effective, to deal with judges who allowed themselves to be
bribed. There were laws against defrauders of the revenue;
laws against debasing the coin; laws against sacrilege; laws
against corrupt State contracts; laws against bribery at
elections. Finally, there was a law, carefully framed, 'De
repetundis.' to exact retribution from pro-consuls or
pro-prætors of the type of Verres, who had plundered the
provinces."
J. A. Froude,
Cæsar,
chapter 13.
JULIAN LINE, The.
See ROME: A. D. 68-96.
JULIANUS.
See JULIAN.
Julianus, Didius, Roman Emperor, A. D. 193.
JÜLICH-CLEVE CONTEST, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618;
and FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
JULIOMAGUS.
Modern Angers.
See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.
JULIUS II.,
Pope, A. D. 1503-1513.
Julius III., Pope, 1550-1555.
Julius Nepos, Roman Emperor (Western), 474-475.
JULY FIRST.
Dominion Day.
See CANADA: A. D. 1867.
JULY FOURTH, Independence Day.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).
JULY MONARCHY, The.
The reign of Louis Philippe, which was brought about by the
revolution of July, 1830 (see FRANCE: A.D. 1815-1830, and
1830-1840), is commonly known in France as the July Monarchy.
JUNIN, Battle of (1824).
See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.
JUNIUS LETTERS, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1769-1772.
JUNONIA.
See CARTHAGE: B. C. 44.
JUNTA.
A Spanish word signifying council, assembly, association.
JUNTA, The Apostolic.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
JURISFIRMA, The process of.
See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.
JUROIPACH, Fortress of.
A fortress in the pass of Derbend, between the last spurs of
the Caucasus and the Caspian, which the Persians and the
Romans undertook at one time to maintain jointly. "This
fortress, known as Juroipach or Biraparach, commanded the
usual passage by which the hordes of the north were accustomed
to issue from their vast arid steppes upon the rich and
populous regions of the south for the purpose of plundering
raids, if not of actual conquests. Their incursions threatened
almost equally Roman and Persian territory, and it was felt
that the two nations were alike interested in preventing them."
G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 19.
JURY, Trial by.
"The fabric of our judicial legislation commences with the
Assize of Clarendon.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.
… In the provisions of this assize for the repression of
crime we find the origin of trial by jury, so often attributed
to earlier times. Twelve lawful men of each hundred, with four
from each township, were sworn to present those who were known
or reputed as criminals within their district for trial by
ordeal. The jurors were thus not merely witnesses, but sworn
to act as judges also in determining the value of the charge;
and it is this double character of Henry's [Henry II.] jurors
that has descended to our 'grand jury.' … Two later steps
brought the jury to its modern condition. Under Edward I.
witnesses acquainted with the particular fact in question were
added in each case to the general jury, and by the separation
of these two classes of jurors at a later time the last became
simply 'witnesses,' without any judicial power, while the
first ceased to be witnesses at all, and became our modern
jurors, who are only judges of the testimony given."
J. R. Green,
Short History of English People,
chapter 2, section 8.
See LAW.
ALSO IN:
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 13, section 164.
W. Forsyth,
History of Trial by Jury.
JUSTICIAR.
The chief minister of the Norman kings of England. At first
the Justiciar was the lieutenant or viceroy of the king during
the absence of the latter from the kingdom; afterward a
permanent minister of justice and finance.
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
volume 1, page 346.
JUSTIN I.,
Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 518-527.
Justin II., Roman Emperor (Eastern), 565-578.
JUSTINIAN I.,
Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 527-565.
Justinian II. (called Rhinotmetus),
Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 685-695, and 704-711.
JUSTINIAN, The Institutes, Pandects and Novels of.
See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.
{1935}
JUSTIZA, OR JUSTICIARY, of Aragon.
See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.
JÜTERBOGK, OR DENNEWITZ, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
JUTES, The.
See ANGLES AND JUTES;
also, ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.
JUTHUNGI, The.
See ALEMANNI, FIRST APPEARANCE OF THE.
JUVAVIUM.
See SALZBURG.
JUVENAL IA, The.
This was a festival instituted by Nero, to commemorate his
attainment of the age of manhood. "His beard was clipped, and
the first tender down of his cheek and chin enclosed in a
golden casket and dedicated to Jupiter in the Capitol. This
ceremony was followed by music and acting," in which the
emperor, himself, performed.
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 53.
JUVERNA.
See IRELAND: THE NAME.
KAABA, OR CAABA, at Mecca, The.
See CAABA.
KABALA, OR CABALA, The.
See CABALA.
KABALA, Battle of.
See SICILY: B. C. 383.
KABELJAUWS.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1345-1354;
also, 1482-1493.
KABYLES, The.
See LIBYANS; also, AMORITES.
KADESH.
A strong fortress of the ancient Hittites on the Orontes. The
name signifies "the holy city."
KADESH-BARNEA.
An important locality in Biblical history. "It looms up as the
objective point of the Israelites in their movement from Sinai
to the Promised Land. It is the place of their testing, of
their failure, of their judging, and of their dispersion. It
is their rallying centre for the forty-years of their
wandering, and the place of their re-assembling for their
final move into the land of their longings."
H. C. Trumbull,
Kadesh-Barnea,
part 1.
Mr. Trumbull identifies the site with the oasis of Ayn Qadees,
in the Wilderness of Zin.
KADIASKERS.
See SUBLIME PORTE.
KADISIYEH, Battle of.
See CADESIA.
KADMEIA, The.
See GREECE: B. C. 383.
KADMEIANS, OR CADMEIANS.
See BŒOTIA.
KADMONITES, The.
See SARACENS.
KAFIRS.
KAFIR WARS.
See SOUTH AFRICA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS,
and A. D. 1811-1868;
also, AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.
KAGHUL, Battle of (1770).
See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.
KAH-KWAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.
KAINARDJI, OR
KUTSCHUK KAINARDJI, Treaty of (1774).
See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.
KAIRWAN, The founding of.
Acbah, the first of the Moslem conquerors of Northern Africa
who penetrated as far westward as the domain of ancient
Carthage, but who did not take that city, secured his footing
in the region [A. D. 670-675] by founding a new city,
thirty-three leagues southeast of Carthage and twelve leagues
from the sea. The site chosen was a wild, thickly wooded
valley, in the midst of which the Arab leader is said to have
cleared a space, erected walls around it, and then, planting
his lance in the center, cried to his followers: "This is your
Caravan." Hence the name, Kairwan or Caerwan, or Cairoan.

Fixing his seat of government at Kairwan, building mosques and
opening markets, Acbah and his successors soon made the new
city a populous and important capital.
W. Irving,
Mahomet and his Successors,
volume 2, chapter 44.
ALSO IN:
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 51.
A. A. Boddy,
Kairwan the Holy.
KAISAR-I-HIND.
See INDIA: A. D. 1877.
KAISER, Origin of the title.
See CÆSAR, THE TITLE.
KAISERSLAUTERN, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).
KALAPOOIAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KALAPOOIAN FAMILY.
KALB, Baron De, and the War of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).
KALEVALA,
KALEWALA, The.
"To a certain class of modern philologists, no poem in the
world is more familiar than the Kalewala, the long epic, which
is to the mythology and traditional lore of the Finns what the
Iliad and Odyssey of Homer are to the heroic story of ancient
Greece. It is the source from which nearly all the information
connected with the religious creed, the moral notions, the
customs, and the domestic details of a most remarkable race is
to be obtained. If we would know how the Greeks of the heroic
age prayed, fought, eat, drank, sported, and clothed
themselves, we turn to the pages of Homer. If we would obtain
similar knowledge on the subject of the Finns, we consult the
Kalewala. Though the traditions of the Finnish heroes are
possibly as old as those of Achilles and Ajax, the arrangement
of them into a continuous poem is a work of very recent date.
No Wolfian controversy will arise respecting the construction
of the Kalewala, for it is not more than twenty-five years
since the Peisistratid who first put together the isolated
songs, or Runes, published the result of his labours.
Fragments of Finnish poetry, collected from the oral
traditions of the people, had already made their appearance,
though even the first important collection of these, which was
made by Dr. Zacharias Topelius, dates no further back than
1822. … But it is with Dr. Lönnrot that the existence of the
epic as an epic, with the title 'Kalewala,' begins. He
published it in thirty-two Runes,—that is to say, books or
cantos, for the word, which previously denoted an independent
poem, now sinks into little more than a sign of division,
though here and there, it must be confessed, an abrupt
transition occurs, to which a parallel would not be found in
the Iliad or the Odyssey. In 1849 a second edition of the
Kalewala was published, likewise under the superintendence of
Dr. Lönnrot, containing fifty cantos and nearly 23,000 lines."
J. Oxenford,
Kalewala
(Temple Bar, December, 1860).
{1936}
"Besides its fresh and simple beauty of style, its worth as a
storehouse of every kind of primitive folk-lore, being as it
is the production of an Urvolk, a nation that has undergone no
violent revolution in language or institutions—the Kalevala
has the peculiar interest of occupying a position between the
two kinds of primitive poetry, the ballad and the epic. …
Sixty years ago, it may be said, no one was aware that Finland
possessed a national poem at all. Her people—who claim
affinity with the Magyars of Hungary, but are possibly a
back-wave of an earlier tide of population—had remained
untouched by foreign influences since their conquest by
Sweden, and their somewhat lax and wholesale conversion to
Christianity: events which took place gradually between the
middle of the twelfth and the end of the thirteenth centuries.
… The annexation of Finland by Russia, in 1809, awakened
national feeling, and stimulated research into the songs and
customs which were the heirlooms of the people. … From the
north of Norway to the slopes of the Altai, ardent explorers
sought out the fragments of unwritten early poetry. These
runes, or runots, were sung chiefly by old men called Runoias,
to beguile the weariness of the long dark winters. The custom
was for two champions to engage in a contest of memory,
clasping each other's hands, and reciting in turn till he
whose memory first gave in slackened his hold. The Kalevala
contains an instance of this practice, where it is said that
no one was so hardy as to clasp hands with Wäinämöinen, who is
at once the Orpheus and the Prometheus of Finnish mythology.
These Runoias, or rhapsodists, complain, of course, of the
degeneracy of human memory; they notice how any foreign
influence, in religion or politics, is destructive to the
native songs of a race. 'As for the lays of old time, a
thousand have been scattered to the wind, a thousand buried in
the snow. … As for those which the Munks (the Teutonic
knights) swept away, and the prayer of the priest
over-whelmed, a thousand tongues were not able to recount
them.' In spite of the losses thus caused, and in spite of the
suspicious character of the Finns, which often made the task
of collection a dangerous one, enough materials remained to
furnish Dr. Lönnrot, the most noted explorer, with thirty-five
Runots, or cantos. These were published in 1835, but later
research produced the fifteen cantos which make up the
symmetrical fifty of the Kalevala. In the task of arranging
and uniting these, Dr. Lönnrot played the part generally
ascribed to Pisistratus in relation to the Iliad and Odyssey.
He is said to have handled with singular fidelity the
materials which now come before us as one poem, not without a
certain unity and continuous thread of narrative. It is this
unity which gives the Kalevala a claim to the title of epic,
although the element of permanence which is most obvious in
the Greek epics, and in the earliest Hebrew records, is here
conspicuously absent. … Among the Finns we find no trace of
an aristocracy; there is scarcely a mention of kings, or
priests; the heroes of the poem are really popular heroes,
fishers, smiths, husbandmen, 'medicine-men' or wizards;
exaggerated shadows of the people, pursuing on a heroic scale,
not war, but the common daily business of primitive and
peaceful men. In recording their adventures, the Kalevala,
like the shield of Achilles, reflects all the life of a race,
the feasts, the funerals, the rites of seed-time and harvest,
of marriage and death, the hymn, and the magical incantation.
Were this all, the epic would only have the value of an
exhaustive collection of the popular ballads which, as we have
seen, are a poetical record of all the intenser moments in the
existence of unsophisticated tribes. But it is distinguished
from such a collection, by presenting the ballads as they are
produced by the events of a continuous narrative, and thus it
takes a distinct place between the aristocratic epics of
Greece, or of the Franks, and the scattered songs which have
been collected in Scotland, Sweden, Denmark, Greece, and
Italy. Besides the interest of its unique position as a
popular epic, the Kalevala is very precious, both for its
literary beauties and for the confused mass of folk-lore which
it contains. … What is to be understood by the word
'Kalevala'? The affix 'la' signifies 'abode.' Thus, 'Tuonela'
is 'the abode of Tuoni,' the god of the lower world; and as
'kaleva' means 'heroic,' 'magnificent,' 'Kalevala' is 'The
Home of Heroes,' like the Indian 'Beerbhoom,' or 'Virbhûmi.'
The poem is the record of the adventures of the people of
Kalevala—of their strife with the men of Pohjola, the place
of the world's end."
A. Lang,
Kalevala
(Fraser's May, June, 1872).
A complete translation of the Kalevala into English verse, by
John Martin Crawford, was published in New York, in 1888.
Project Gutenberg
Kalevala: the Epic Poem of Finland—
Complete by Lönnrot and Crawford
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5186
KALISCH, Battle of (1706).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.
KALISCH, OR CALISCH, Treaty of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.
KALMUKS, The.
See TARTARS.
KAMBALU, OR CAMBALU,
See CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.
KAMBULA, Battle of (1879),
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1879.
KAMI, OR KHEMI, OR KEM.
See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.
KANAKAS.
See HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.
KANAWHA, Battle of the Great.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.
KANAWHA, The proposed State of.
See WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-DECEMBER).
KANAWHAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
KANDHS, The.
See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
----------KANSAS: Start--------
KANSAS:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY,
and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
KANSAS: A. D. 1803.
Mostly embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.
KANSAS: A. D. 1854.
Territorial organization.
The Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.
KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.
The battle-ground of the struggle against Slavery-extension.
Border-ruffians and Free State settlers.
"The attention of the whole country had now been turned to the
struggle provoked by the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and the repeal
of the Missouri Compromise. The fertile soil of Kansas had
been offered as a prize to be contended for by Free and Slave
States, and both had accepted the contest. The Slave State
settlers were first in the field. The slave-holders of Western
Missouri, which shut off Kansas from the Free States, had crossed
the border, preempted lands, and warned Free State immigrants
not to pass through Missouri.
{1937}
The first election of a delegate to Congress took place
November 29th, 1854, and was carried by organized bands of
Missourians, who moved over the border on election day, voted,
and returned at once to Missouri. The spring election of 1855,
for a Territorial Legislature, was carried in the same
fashion. In July, 1855, the Legislature, all Pro-Slavery, met
at Pawnee, and adopted a State Constitution. To save trouble
it adopted the laws of the State of Missouri entire, with a
series of original statutes denouncing the penalty of death
for nearly fifty offenses against Slavery. All through the
spring and summer of 1855 Kansas was the scene of almost
continuous conflict, the Border Ruffians of Missouri
endeavoring to drive out the Free State settlers by murder and
arson, and the Free State settlers retaliating. The cry of
'bleeding Kansas' went through the North. Emigration societies
were formed in the Free States to aid, arm, equip, and protect
intending settlers. These, prevented from passing through
Missouri, took a more Northern route through Iowa and
Nebraska, and moved into Kansas like an invading army. The
Southern states also sent parties of intending settlers. But
these were not generally slave-holders, but young men anxious
for excitement. They did not go to Kansas, as their opponents
did, to plow, sow, gather crops, and build up homes.
Therefore, though their first rapid and violent movements were
successful, their subsequent increase of resources and numbers
was not equal to that of the Free State settlers. The
Territory soon became practically divided into a Pro-Slavery
district, and a Free State district. Leavenworth in the
former, and Topeka and Lawrence in the latter, were the chief
towns. September 5th, 1855, a Free State Convention at Topeka
repudiated the Territorial Legislature and all its works, as
the acts and deeds of Missourians alone. It also resolved to
order a separate election for delegate to Congress, so as to
force that body to decide the question, and to form a State
government. January 15th, 1856, the Free State settlers
[having applied to Congress for admission as a State] elected
State officers under the Topeka Free State Constitution. The
Federal Executive now entered the field. January 24th, 1856,
the President [Franklin Pierce], in a Special Message to
Congress, endorsed the Pro-Slavery Legislature, and pronounced
the attempt to form a Free State government, without the
approval of the Federal authorities in the Territory, to be an
act of rebellion. He then issued a proclamation, warning all
persons engaged in disturbing the peace of Kansas to retire to
their homes, and placed United States troops at the orders of
Governor Shannon to enforce the (Pro-Slavery) laws of the
Territory. The population of Kansas was now so large that very
considerable armies were mustered on both sides, and a
desultory civil war was kept up until nearly the end of the
year. During its progress two Free State towns, Lawrence and
Ossawattomie, were sacked. July 4th, 1856, the Free State
Legislature attempted to assemble at Topeka, but was at once
dispersed by a body of United States troops, under orders from
Washington. September 9th, a new Governor, Geary, of
Pennsylvania, arrived and succeeded in keeping the peace to
some extent by a mixture of temporizing and decided measures.
By the end, of the year he even claimed to have established
order in the Territory. … January 6th, 1857, the Free State
Legislature again attempted to meet at Topeka, and was again
dispersed by Federal interference. Its presiding officer and
many of its members were arrested by a United States deputy
marshal. The Territorial, or Pro-Slavery, Legislature
quarreled with Governor Geary, who resigned, and Robert J.
Walker, of Mississippi, was appointed in his stead. A
resolution was passed by the House [in Congress] declaring the
Acts of the Territorial Legislature cruel, oppressive,
illegal, and void. It was tabled by the Senate." A new
Congress met December 7th, 1857, "with a Democratic majority
in both branches. In the House, James L. Orr, of South
Carolina, a Democrat, was chosen Speaker. The debates of this
Session were mainly upon the last scene in the Kansas
struggle. Governor Walker had succeeded in persuading the Free
State settlers to recognize the Territorial Legislature so far
as to take part in the election which it had ordered. The
result gave them control of the Legislature. But a previously
elected Pro-Slavery Convention, sitting at Lecompton, went on
to form a State Constitution. This was to be submitted to the
people, but only votes 'For the Constitution with Slavery,' or
'For the Constitution without Slavery,' were to be received.
Not being allowed in either event to vote against the
Constitution, the Free State settlers refused to vote at all,
and the Lecompton Constitution with Slavery received 6,000
majority. The new Territorial Legislature, however, ordered an
election at which the people could vote for or against the
Lecompton Constitution, and a majority of 10,000 was cast
against it. … The President's Message argued in favor of
receiving Kansas as a State under the Lecompton Constitution
with Slavery, on the ground that the delegates had been chosen
to form a State Constitution, and were not obligated to submit
it to the people at all. This view was supported by the
Southern members of Congress, and opposed by the Republicans
and by a part of the Democrats, headed by Senator Douglas, of
Illinois. The Senate passed a bill admitting Kansas as a
State, under the Lecompton Constitution. The House passed the
bill, with the proviso that the Constitution should again be
submitted to a popular vote. The Senate rejected the proviso.
A conference committee recommended that the bill of the House
should be adopted, with an additional proviso making large
grants of public lands to the new State, if the people of
Kansas should vote to adopt the Lecompton Constitution. In
this form the bill was passed by both Houses, and became a
law. … The proffered inducement of public lands was a
failure, and in August the Lecompton Constitution was rejected
by 10,000 majority. Kansas, therefore, still remained a
Territory. In 1859, at an election called by the Territorial
Legislature, the people decided in favor of another Convention
to form a State Constitution. This body met at Wyandot, in
July, 1859, and adopted a State Constitution prohibiting
Slavery. The Wyandot Constitution was submitted to the people
and received a majority of 4,000 in its favor;" but Congress
refused the admission to Kansas under this Constitution, the
Senate rejecting, though the House approved.
A. Johnston,
History of American Politics,
chapters 18-19.
ALSO IN:
D. W. Wilder,
Annals of Kansas (containing the text of the several
Constitutions, etc.).
E. E. Hale,
Kansas and Nebraska,
chapters 8-9.
S. T. L. Robinson,
Kansas
J. H. Gihon,
Governor Geary's Administration in Kansas.
F. B. Sanborn,
Life and Letters of John Brown,
chapters 7-11.
Reports of Select Committee,
(34th Congress, 1st Session, H. R. Report 200).
J. F. Rhodes,
History of the United States from 1850,
chapters 7-9 (volume 2).
C. Robinson,
The Kansas Conflict.
See, also, JAYHAWKERS.
{1938}
KANSAS: A. D. 1861.
Admission to the Union under the Wyandot Constitution.
"As soon as a sufficient number of Southern members of
Congress [from the seceding States] had withdrawn to give the
Republicans a majority in both Houses, Kansas was admitted as
a State [January 29, 1861] under the Wyandot Free State
Constitution."
A. Johnston,
History of American Politics,
2d edition, page 185.
KANSAS: A. D. 1863.
Quantrell's guerrilla raid.
The sacking of Lawrence.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST: MISSOURI-KANSAS).
----------KANSAS: End----------
KANSAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
KAPOHN, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
KAPOLNA, Battle of (1849).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
KAPPEL, Battle of (1531).
The Kappeler Milchsuppe.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.
KARA GEORG, The career of.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).
KARAISM.
KARAITES.
The Jewish sect of the Karaites originated in the teaching of
one Anan ben David, in the 8th century, whose radical doctrine
was the rejection of the Talmud and a return to the Bible "for
the ordering of religious life." Hence "the system of religion
which Anan founded received the name of the Religion of the
Text, or Karaism,"
H. Graetz,
History of the Jews,
volume 3, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 23.
KARAKORUM.
The early capital of the Mongol empire of Jingis Khan and his
successors was at Karakorum, believed to have been situated
near the river Orkhon, or Orgon. Ogotai built a great palace
there, in 1235, called Ordu Balik, or the city of the Ordu.
H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
volume 1. pages 155 and 182.
See, also,
MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.
KARANKAWAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KARANKAWAN FAMILY.
KARIGAUM, Defense of (1817).
See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.
KARKAR, Battle of.
Fought B. C. 854, by Shalmaneser of Assyria, with the
confederate, kings of Damascus, Israel and their Syrian
neighbors; the latter defeated.
KARL.
See ETHEL.—ETHELING.
KARLINGS, OR CARLINGS.
See FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.
KARLOWITZ, OR CARLOWITZ, Peace of.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.
KARLSBAD, OR CARLSBAD, Congress of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.
KARMATHIANS, The.
See CARMATHIANS.
KARNATTAH.
The Moorish name of Granada, signifying "the cream of the
West."
See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.
KAROKS, OR CAHROCS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.
KAROLINGIA AND KAROLINGIANS.
See CAROLINGIA; and FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.
----------KARS: Start--------
KARS: A. D. 1854-1856.
Siege and capture by the Russians.
Restoration to Turkey.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1855 and 1854-1856.
KARS: A. D. 1877.
Siege and capture by the Russians.
See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.
KARS: A. D. 1878.
Cession to Russia.
See TURKS: A. D. 1878 THE TREATIES.
----------KARS: End--------
KASDIM, OR CASDIM.
See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.
----------KASHMERE: Start--------
KASHMERE: A. D. 1819-1820.
Conquest by Runjet Singh.
See SIKHS.
KASHMERE: A. D. 1846.
Taken from the Sikhs by the English and given as a kingdom to
Gholab Singh.
See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.
----------KASHMERE: Start--------
----------KASKASKIA: Start--------
KASKASKIA, French settlement of.
See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1751.
KASKASKIA: A. D. 1778.
Taken by the Virginian General Clark.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.
----------KASKASKIA: End----------
KASKASKIAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
KASSOPIANS.
See EPIRUS.
KATABA, OR CATAWBAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY,
and, SIOUAN FAMILY.
KATANA, Naval Battle of.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.
KATZBACH, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (AUGUST).
KAUS, OR KWOKWOOS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KUSAN FAMILY.
KAWS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
KAZAN, The Khanate of.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.
KEARNEYITES.
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.
KEARNEY'S EXPEDITION AND CONQUEST OF NEW MEXICO.
See NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846.
KEDAR, Tribe of.
"The Arabs of the tribe of Kedar are often mentioned in the
Bible, especially with reference to the trade with Phœnicia.
They furnished the caravans across the desert of Dahna, to
convey the merchandise of Hadramaut, Marah, and Oman to Syria.
They inhabited the southern portion of Yemama, on the borders
of the desert."
F. Lenormant,
Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
book 7, chapter 1, section 7 (volume 2).
KEECHIES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
KEEHEETSAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
KEEWATIN, District of.
"In 1876 an act was passed by the Dominion Parliament [Canada]
erecting into a separate government under the name of the
District of Keewatin the portion of the North-West Territory
lying to the north of Manitoba. The district contains about
395,000 acres, and is principally occupied by Icelandic
colonists. The Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba is ex-officio
Lieutenant-Governor of Keewatin."
J. E. C. Munro,
The Constitution of Canada,
page 35.
{1939}
KEFT.
The ancient Egyptian name of Phœnicia.
----------KEHL: Start--------
KEHL: A. D. 1703.
Taken by the French.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.
KEHL: A. D. 1733.
Taken by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.
----------KEHL: End--------
KEITH, George, The schism and the controversies of.
See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.
KELLY'S FORD, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).
KELTS, The.
See CELTS, THE.
KEM, OR KAMI, OR KHEMI.
See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.
KENAI, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET,
and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
KENDALL, Amos, in the "Kitchen Cabinet" of President Jackson.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.
KENESAW MOUNTAIN, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).
KENITES, The.
See AMALEKITES, THE.
KENT, Kingdom of.
Formed by the Jutes in the southeast corner of Britain. The
only other settlement of the Jutes in England was in the Isle
of Wight and on the neighboring coast of Hampshire.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.
KENT, Weald of.
See ANDERIDA.
KENT'S HOLE.
One of the most noted of the caves which have been carefully
explored for relics of early man, coeval with extinct animals.
It is in Devonshire, England, near Torquay.
W. B. Dawkins,
Cave Hunting.
----------KENTUCKY: Start----------
KENTUCKY: A. D. 1748.
First English exploration from Virginia.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.
KENTUCKY: A. D. 1765-1778.
Absence of Indian inhabitants.
Early exploration and settlement by the whites.
The colony of Transylvania.
In the wars that were waged between the Indian tribes of the
South, before the advent of white settlers, Kentucky became "a
sort of border-land such as separated the Scots and English in
their days of combat. … The Chickasaws alone held their
ground, being the most northern of the sedentary Southern
Indians. Their strongholds on the bluffs of the Mississippi
and the inaccessibility of this country on account of its
deep, sluggish, mud-bordered streams, seem to have given them
a sufficient measure of protection against their enemies, but
elsewhere in the State the Indians were rooted out by their
wars. The last tenants of the State, east of the Tennessee
River, were the Shawnees,—that combative folk who ravaged
this country with their ceaseless wars from the head-waters of
the Tennessee to the Mississippi, and from the Lakes to
Alabama. It was no small advantage to the early settlers of
Kentucky that they found this region without a resident Indian
population, for, bitter as was the struggle with the claimants
of the soil, it never had the danger that would have come from
a contest with the natives in closer proximity to their homes.
… As Kentucky was unoccupied by the Indians, it was
neglected by the French. … Thus the first settlers found
themselves, in the main, free from these dangers due to the
savages and their Gallic allies. The land lay more open to
their occupancy than any other part of this country ever did
to its first European comers. … In 1765 Colonel George
Croghan, who had previously visited the Ohio with Gist, made a
surveying journey down that stream from Pittsburg to the
Mississippi. … In 1766 a party of five persons, including a
mulatto slave, under the command of Captain James Smith,
explored a large part of what is now Tennessee, and probably
extended their journey through Southern Kentucky. Journeys to
Kentucky now became frequent. Every year sent one or more
parties of pioneers to one part or another of the country. In
1769 Daniel Boone and five companions, all from the Yadkin
settlements in North Carolina, came to Eastern Kentucky. One
of the party was killed, but Boone remained, while his
companions returned to their homes. Thus it will be seen that
Boone's first visit was relatively late in the history of
Kentucky explorations. Almost every part of its surface had
been traversed by other explorers before this man, who passes
in history as the typical pioneer, set foot upon its ground.
In the time between 1770 and 1772 George Washington, then a
land-surveyor, made two surveys in the region which is now the
northeast corner of Kentucky. … The first distinct effort to
found a colony was made by James Harrod and about forty
companions, who found their way down the Ohio near to where
Louisville now stands, and thence by land to what is now
Mercer County, in Central Kentucky, where they established, on
June 16, 1774, a village which they called, in honor of their
leader, Harrodsburg. Earlier attempts at settlement were made
at Louisville, but the fear of Indians caused the speedy
abandonment of this post. … In 1775 other and stronger
footholds were gained. Boone built a fort in what is now
Madison County, and Logan another at St. Asaphs, in Lincoln
County. The settlement of Kentucky was greatly favored by the
decisive victory gained by Lord Dunmore's troops over the
Indians from the north of the Ohio, at the mouth of the
Kanawha.
See OHIO VALLEY: A. D. 1774.
… That the process of possessing the land was going on with
speed may be seen from the fact that Henderson and Company,
land-agents at Boonesborough, issued from their office in the
new-built fort entry certificates of surveys for 560,000 acres
of land. The process of survey was of the rudest kind, but it
served the purpose of momentary definition of the areas, made
it possible to deal with the land as a commodity, and left the
tribulations concerning boundaries to the next generation.
These land deeds were given as of the 'colony of
Transylvania,' which was in fact the first appellation of
Kentucky, a name by which it was known for several years
before it received its present appellation. At this time, the
last year that the work of settling Kentucky was done under
the authority of his majesty King George III., there were
probably about 150 men who had placed themselves in
settlements that were intended to be permanent within the
bounds of what is now the Commonwealth of Kentucky. There may
have been as many more doing the endless exploring work which
preceded the choice of a site for their future homes. The men
at Boone's Station claimed, and seem to have been awarded, a
sort of hegemony among the settlements.
{1940}
On the 23d of May, at the call of Colonel Henderson, the
land-agent of the proprietors, delegates from these
settlements met at Boonesborough, and drew up a brief code of
nine laws for the government of the young Commonwealth. …
The Boonesborough parliament adjourned to meet in September,
but it never reassembled. The venture which led to its
institution fell altogether to ruin, and the name of
Transylvania has been almost entirely forgotten. … The
colony of Transylvania rested on a purchase of about
17,000,000 acres, or about one half the present area of
Kentucky, which was made by some people of North Carolina from
the Overhill Cherokee Indians, a part of the great tribe that
dwelt on the Holston River. For this land the unfortunate
adventurers paid the sum of £10,000 of English money. …
Immediately after the Boonesborough parliament the position of
the Transylvania company became very insecure; its own people
began to doubt the validity of the titles they had obtained
from the company, because, after a time, they learned from
various sources that the lands of this region of Kentucky had
been previously ceded to the English government by the Six
Nations, and were included in the Virginia charter. In the
latter part of 1775, eighty men of the Transylvania settlement
signed a memorial asking to be taken under the protection of
Virginia; or, if that colony thought it best, that their
petition might be referred to the General Congress. … The
proprietors of the colony made their answer to this rebellion
by sending a delegate to the Federal Congress at Philadelphia,
who was to request that the colony of Transylvania be added to
the number of the American colonies. … Nothing came of this
protest. Congress refused to seat their delegate, Patrick
Henry and Jefferson, then representing Virginia, opposing the
efforts of the proprietors. The Governor of North Carolina
issued a proclamation declaring their purchase illegal. The
colony gradually fell to pieces, though the State of Virginia
took no decided action with reference to it until, in 1778,
that Commonwealth declared the acts of the company void, but,
in a generous spirit, offered compensation to Colonel
Henderson and the other adventurers. The Transylvania company
received 200,000 acres of valuable lands, and their sales to
actual settlers were confirmed by an act of the Virginia
Assembly. Thus the strongest, though not the first, colony of
Kentucky, was a misadventure and quickly fell to pieces."
N. S. Shaler,
Kentucky,
chapters 5-7.
ALSO IN;
T. Roosevelt,
The Winning of the West,
volume 1, chapters 6 and 8-12.
KENTUCKY: A. D. 1768.
The Treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix.
Pretended cession of the country south of the Ohio.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.
KENTUCKY: A. D. 1774.
The western Territorial claims of Virginia.
Lord Dunmore's war with the Indians.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.
KENTUCKY: A. D. 1775-1784.
A county of Virginia.
Indian warfare of the Revolution.
Aspirations towards State independence.
"In the winter of 1775 Kentucky was formed into a county of
Virginia. … About this time Harrodsburg, Boonesborough and
Logan's Fort were successively assailed by the Indians. They
withstood the furious attacks made upon them; not, however,
without great loss. During the succeeding summer they were
considerably reinforced by a number of men from North
Carolina, and about 100 under Colonel Bowman from Virginia. In
1778 Kentucky was invaded by an army of Indians and Canadians
under the command of Captain Duquesne; and the expedition of
Colonel George Rodgers Clark against the English post of
Vincennes and Kaskaskia took place this year. In February of
this year Boone, with about 30 men, was engaged in making salt
at the Lower Blue Licks, when he was surprised by about 200
Indians. The whole party surrendered upon terms of
capitulation. The Indians carried them to Detroit, and
delivered them all up to the commandant, except Boone, whom
they carried to Chilicothe. Boone soon effected his escape.
… After … some weeks … Captain Duquesne, with about 500
Indians and Canadians, made his appearance before
Boonesborough, and besieged the fort for the space of nine
days, but finally decamped with the loss of 30 men killed, and
a much greater number wounded. … About the first of April,
1779, Robert Patterson erected a block house, with some
adjacent defenses, where the city of Lexington now stands.
This year, the celebrated land law of Kentucky was passed by
the Legislature of Virginia, usually called the Occupying
Claimant Law. The great defect of this law was, that Virginia,
by this act, did not provide for the survey of the country at
the expense of the State. … Each one holding a warrant could
locate it where he pleased, and survey it at his own cost. …
The consequence of this law was … a flood of emigration
during the years 1780 and 1781. During this period the
emigrants were greatly annoyed by the frequent incursions of
the Indians, and their entire destruction sometimes seemed
almost inevitable. This law was a great feast for the lawyers
of that day. … In November, 1780, Kentucky was divided into
three counties, bearing the names of Fayette, Lincoln, and
Jefferson. … In 1782, Indian hostility was earlier, more
active and shocking than it had ever been in the country
before; a great battle was fought upon Hinkston's Fork of the
Licking, near where Mount Sterling now stands, in which the
Indians were victorious. In this battle, Estill, who commanded
the whites, and nearly all of his officers, were killed. Near
the Blue Licks another battle was soon afterwards fought with
Captain Holder, in which the whites were again defeated; in
both these last mentioned battles the contending foe were
Wyandottes. … Peace was made with Great Britain in 1783, and
hostilities ceased; hostilities with the Indians also for a
time seemed suspended, but were soon renewed with greater
violence than ever. During the cessation of hostilities with
the Indians, settlements in Kentucky advanced rapidly. … As
early as 1784 the people of Kentucky became strongly impressed
with the necessity of the organization of a regular
government, and gaining admission into the Union as a separate
and independent State; but their efforts were continually
perplexed and baffled for the space of eight years before
their desire was fully accomplished. And though they were
often tempted by Spain with the richest gifts of fortune if
she would declare herself an independent State, and although
the Congress of the Confederated States continually turned a
deaf ear to her reiterated complaints and grievances, and
repulsed her in every effort to obtain constitutional
independence, she maintained to the last the highest respect
for law and order, and the most unswerving affection for the
Government. … With the view to admission into the Union as
an independent State, there were elected and held nine
Conventions in Kentucky within the space of eight years."
W. B. Allen,
History of Kentucky,
chapters 2-3.
ALSO IN:
J. M. Brown,
Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
{1941}
KENTUCKY: A. D. 1778-1779.
Conquest of the Northwest by the Virginian General Clark, and
its annexation to the Kentucky District.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.
KENTUCKY: A. D. 1781-1784.
Conflicting territorial claims of Virginia and New York and
their cession to the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.
KENTUCKY: A. D. 1785-1800.
The question of the free navigation of the Mississippi.
Discontent of the settlers.
Intrigues of Wilkinson.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.
KENTUCKY: A. D. 1789-1792.
Separation from Virginia and admission to the Union as a
State.
"In the last days of the Continental Congress, Virginia, after
some struggles, having reluctantly consented to her
organization on that condition as an independent state,
Kentucky had applied to that body for admission into the
confederacy. That application had been referred to the new
federal government about to be organized, a delay which had
made it necessary to recommence proceedings anew; for the
Virginia Assembly had fixed a limitation of time, which, being
over-past, drove back the separatists to the original
starting-point. On a new application to the Virginia
Legislature, a new act had authorized a new Convention, being
the third held on that subject: to take the question of
separating into consideration. But this act had imposed some
new terms not at all agreeable to the Kentuckians, of which
the principal was the assumption by the new state of a portion
of the Virginia debt, on the ground of expenses incurred by
recent expeditions against the Indians. The Convention which
met under this act proceeded no further than to vote a
memorial to the Virginia Legislature requesting the same terms
formerly offered. That request was granted, and a fourth
Convention was authorized again to consider the question of
separation, and, should that measure be still persisted in, to
fix the day when it should take place. Having met during the
last summer [1790], this Convention had voted unanimously in
favor of separation; had fixed the first day of June, 1792, as
the time; and had authorized the meeting of a fifth Convention
to frame a state Constitution. In anticipation of these
results, an act of Congress was, now passed [February 4, 1791]
admitting Kentucky into the Union from and after the day above
mentioned, not only without any inspection of the state
Constitution, but before any such Constitution had been
actually formed." In the Constitution subsequently framed for
the new state of Kentucky, by the Convention appointed as
above, an article on the subject of slavery "provided that the
Legislature should have no power to pass laws for the
emancipation of slaves without the consent of their owners,
nor without paying therefor, previous to such emancipation, a
full equivalent in money; nor laws to prevent immigrants from
bringing with them persons deemed slaves by the laws of anyone
of the United States, so long as any persons of like age and
description should be continued in slavery by the laws of
Kentucky. But laws might be passed prohibiting the
introduction of slaves for the purpose of sale, and also laws
to oblige the owners of slaves to treat them with humanity."
R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
volume 4, chapters 3-4.
ALSO IN:
J. M. Brown,
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
KENTUCKY: A. D. 1790-1795.
War with the Indian tribes of the Northwest.
Disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair, and Wayne's
decisive victory.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.
KENTUCKY: A. D. 1798.
The Nullifying resolutions.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.
KENTUCKY: A. D. 1861 (January-September).
The struggle with Secession and its defeat.
"Neutrality" ended.
"In the days when personal leadership was more than it can
ever be again, while South Carolina was listening to the
teachings of John C. Calhoun, which led her to try the
experiment of secession, Kentucky was following Henry Clay,
who, though a slave-holder, was a strong Unionist. The
practical effect was seen when the crisis came, after he had
been in his grave nine years. Governor Beriah Magoffin
convened the Legislature in January, 1861, and asked it to
organize the militia, buy muskets, and put the State in a
condition of armed neutrality; all of which it refused to do.
After the fall of Fort Sumter he called the Legislature
together again, evidently hoping that the popular excitement
would bring them over to his scheme. But the utmost that could
be accomplished was the passage of a resolution by the lower
house (May 16) declaring that Kentucky should occupy 'a
position of strict neutrality,' and approving his refusal to
furnish troops for the National army. Thereupon he issued a
proclamation (May 20) in which he 'notified and warned all
other States, separate or united, especially the United and
Confederate States, that I solemnly forbid any movement upon
Kentucky soil.' But two days later the Legislature repudiated
this interpretation of neutrality, and passed a series of acts
intended to prevent any scheme of secession that might be
formed. It appropriated $1,000,000 for arms and ammunition,
but placed the disbursement of the money and control of the
arms in the hands of Commissioners that were all Union men. It
amended the militia law so as to require the State Guards to
take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States,
and finally the Senate passed a resolution declaring that
'Kentucky will not sever connection with the National
Government, nor take up arms with either belligerent party.'
Lovell H. Rousseau (afterward a gallant General in the
National service), speaking in his place in the Senate, said:
'The politicians are having their day; the people will yet
have theirs. I have an abiding confidence in the right, and I
know that this secession movement is all wrong. There is not a
single substantial reason for it; our Government had never
oppressed us with a feather's weight.' The Rev. Robert J.
Breckinridge and other prominent citizens took a similar
stand, and a new Legislature, chosen in August, presented a
Union majority of three to one.
{1942}
As a last resort, Governor Magoffin addressed a letter to
President Lincoln, requesting that Kentucky's neutrality be
respected and the National forces removed from the State. Mr.
Lincoln, in refusing his request, courteously reminded him
that the force consisted exclusively of Kentuckians, and told
him that he had not met any Kentuckian except himself and the
messengers that brought his letter who wanted it removed. To
strengthen the first argument, Robert Anderson, of Fort Sumter
fame, who was a citizen of Kentucky, was made a General and
given the command in the State in September. Two months later,
a secession convention met at Russellville, in the southern
part of the State, organized a provisional government, and
sent a full delegation to the Confederate Congress at
Richmond, who found no difficulty in being admitted to seats
in that body. Being now firmly supported by the new
Legislature, the National Government began to arrest prominent
Kentuckians who still advocated secession, whereupon others,
including ex-Vice-President John C. Breckinridge, fled
southward and entered the service of the Confederacy. Kentucky
as a State was saved to the Union, but the line of separation
was drawn between her citizens, and she contributed to the
ranks of both the great contending armies."
R. Johnson,
Short History of the War of Secession,
chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
N. S. Shaler,
Kentucky,
chapter 15.
E. P. Thompson,
History of First Kentucky Brigade,
chapter 2.
KENTUCKY: A. D. 1861 (April).
Governor Magoffin's reply to President Lincoln's call for
troops.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).
KENTUCKY: A. D. 1862 (January-February).
Expulsion of Confederate armies along the whole line.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY—TENNESSEE).
KENTUCKY: A. D. 1862 (August-October).
Bragg's invasion.
Buell's pursuit.
Battle of Perryville.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).
KENTUCKY: A. D. 1863 (July).
John Morgan's Raid.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).
----------KENTUCKY: End----------
KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.
KENYER-MESÖ, Battle of (1479).
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.
KERAÏT, The.
See PRESTER JOHN, THE KINGDOM OF.
KERAMEIKOS, The.
See CERAMICUS OF ATHENS.
KERBELA, The Moslem tragedy at.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 680.
KERESAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KERESAN FAMILY.
KERESTES, OR CERESTES, Battle of (1596).
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.
KERMENT, Battle of (1664).
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.
KERNE.
See RAPPAREES.
KERNSTOWN, Battles of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-APRIL: VIRGINIA);
and 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND).
KERTCH, Attack on (1855).
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.
KERYKES, The.
See PHYLÆ.
KESSELSDORF, Battle of (1745).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.
KEYNTON, OR EDGEHILL, Battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
KEYSERWERTH, Siege and storming of (1702).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.
KHAJAR DYNASTY, The.
See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.
KHALIF.
See CALIPH.
KHALSA, The.
See SIKHS;
also, INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845, and 1845-1849.
KHAN.
KHAGAN.
"'Khan' is the modern contracted form of the word which is
found in the middle ages as 'Khagan,' or 'Chagan,' and in the
Persian and Arabic writers as 'Khakan' or 'Khacan.' Its
original root is probably the 'Khak,' which meant King' in
ancient Susianian, in Ethiopic ('Tirhakah'), and in Egyptian
('Hyk-sos')."
G. Rawlinson,
The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 14, foot-note.
KHAR, OR KHARU, The.
"The term Khar in Egyptian texts appears to apply to the
inhabitants of that part of Syria generally known as Phœnicia,
and seems to be derived from the Semitic Akharu, 'the back' or
'west.'"
C. R. Conder,
Syrian Stone Lore,
chapter 1.
KHAREJITES, The.
A democratical party among the Mahometans, which first took

form during the Caliphate of Ali, A. D. 657. The name given to
the party, Kharejites, signified those who "go forth"—that is
in secession and rebellion. It was their political creed that,
"believers being absolutely equal, there should be no Caliph,
nor oath of allegiance sworn to any man; but that the
government should be in the hands of a Council of State
elected by the people." Ali attacked and dispersed the
Kharejites, in a battle at Nehrwan, A. D. 658; but they
continued for a long period to give trouble to succeeding
Caliphs.
Sir W. Muir,
Annals of the Early Caliphate,
chapters 40 and 42, with foot-note.
KHARTANI, Tragedy of the Cave of.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.
KHARTOUM, The Mahdi's siege of.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.
KHAZARS, OR CHAZARS, OR KHOZARS, The.
"This important people, now heard of for the first time in
Persian history [late in the fifth century of the Christian
era], appears to have occupied, in the reign of Kobad, the
steppe country between the Wolga and the Don, whence they made
raids through the passes of the Caucasus into the fertile
provinces of Iberia, Albania, and Armenia. Whether they were
Turks, as is generally believed, or Circassians, as has been
ingeniously argued by a living writer [H. H. Howorth], is
doubtful; but we cannot be mistaken in regarding them as at
this time a race of fierce and terrible barbarians."
G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 18.
"After the fall of the Persian empire [see MAHOMETAN CONQUEST:
A. D. 632-651], they [the Khazars, or Chazars] crossed the
Caucasus, invaded Armenia, and conquered the Crimean
peninsula, which bore the name of Chazaria for some time. The
Byzantine emperors trembled at the name of the Chazars, and
flattered them, and paid them a tribute, in order to restrain
their lust after the booty of Constantinople. The Bulgarians,
and other tribes, were the vassals of the Chazars, and the
people of Kiev (Russians) on the Dnieper were obliged to
furnish them every year with a sword, and fine skins from
every fur hunt.
{1943}
With the Arabs, whose near neighbours they gradually became,
they carried on terrible wars. Like their neighbours, the
Bulgarians and the Russians, the Chazars professed a coarse
religion, which was combined with sensuality and lewdness. The
Chazars became acquainted with Islamism and Christianity
through the Arabs and Greeks. … There were also Jews in the
land of the Chazars; they were some of the fugitives who had
escaped (723) the mania for conversion which possessed the
Byzantine Emperor Leo. … As interpreters or merchants,
physicians or counsellors, the Jews were known and beloved by
the Chazarian court, and they inspired the warlike Bulan with
a love of Judaism. … It is possible that the circumstances
under which the Chazars embraced Judaism have been embellished
by legend, but the fact itself is too definitely proved on all
sides to allow of there being any doubt as to its reality.
Besides Bulan, the nobles of his kingdom, numbering nearly
4,000, adopted the Jewish religion. Little by little it made
its way among the people, so that most of the inhabitants of
the towns of the Chazarian kingdom were Jews. … A successor
of Bulan, who bore the Hebrew name of Obadiah, was the first
to occupy himself earnestly with the Jewish religion. He …
founded synagogues and schools. … After Obadiah came a long
series of Jewish Chagans, for according to a fundamental law
of the state only Jewish rulers were permitted to ascend the
throne."
H. Graetz,
History of the Jews,
volume 3, chapter 5.
KHEDIVE.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.
KHEMI, OR KEM.
See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.
KHITA, The.
See HITTITES, THE.
KHITAI.
KHITANS, The.
See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.
KHIVA.
See KHUAREZM.
KHODYA.
See SUBLIME PORTE.
KHOKAND,
Russian conquest of the Khanate of (1876).
See. RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.
KHONDS, The.
See TURANIAN RACES.
----------KHORASSAN: Start--------
KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.
Conquest and destruction by the Mongols.
In the autumn of A. D. 1220, one division of the armies of
Jingis Khan, commanded by his son Tului, poured into
Khorassan. "Khorassan was then one of the richest and most
prosperous regions on the earth's surface; its towns were very
thickly inhabited, and it was the first and most powerful
province of Persia. The Mongol invasion altered all this, and
the fearful ravage and destruction then committed is almost
incredible." On the capture of the city of Nessa the
inhabitants were tied together with cords and then massacred
in a body—70,000 men, women and children together—by
shooting them with arrows. At Meru (modern Merv) the wholesale
massacre was repeated on a vastly larger scale, the corpses
numbering 700,000, according to one account, 1,300,000
according to another. Even this was exceeded at Nishapoor
("city of Sapor"), the ancient capital of Khorassan. "To
prevent the living hiding beneath the dead, Tului ordered
every head to be cut off, and separate heaps to be made of
men's, women's, and children's heads. The destruction of the
city occupied fifteen days; it was razed to the ground, and
its site was sown with barley; only 400 artisans escaped, and
they were transported into the north. According to Mirkhond
1,747,000 men lost their lives in this massacre." The
destroying army of demons and savages moved on to Herat, then
a beautiful city surrounded by villages and gardens. It
surrendered, and only 12,000 of its soldiers were slain at
that time; but a few months later, upon news of a defeat
suffered by the Mongols, Herat rebelled, and brought down upon
itself a most terrible doom. Captured once more, after a siege
of six months, the city experienced no mercy. "For a whole
week the Mongols ceased not to kill, burn, and destroy, and it
is said that 1,600,000 people were killed; the place was
entirely depopulated and made desert." At Bamian, in the Hindu
Kush, "every living creature, including animals and plants as
well as human beings, was destroyed; a heap of slain was piled
up like a mountain."
H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
part 1, pages 86-91.
KHORASSAN: A. D. 1380.
Conquest by Timour.
See TIMOUR.
----------KHORASSAN: End--------
KHOTZIM.
See CHOCZIM.
KHOULIKOF, Battle of (1383).
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.
----------KHUAREZM: Start--------
KHUAREZM, OR CHORASMIA (modern Khiva).
"The extensive and fertile oasis in the midst of the sandy
deserts of Central Asia, known in these days as the Khanat of
Khiva, was called by the Greeks Chorasmia and by the Arabs
Khwarezm [or Khuarezm]. The Chorasmians were of the Aryan
race, and their contingent to the army of Xerxes was equipped
precisely in the Bactrian fashion. It is probable that
Chorasmia formed a portion of the short-lived Greco-Bactrian
monarchy, and it certainly passed under the domination of the
White Huns, from whom it was subsequently wrested by the
Toorks."
J. Hutton,
Central Asia,
chapter 10.
KHUAREZM: 12th Century.
The Khuarezmian, or Khahrezmian,
or Korasmian, or Carizmian Empire.
"The sovereigns of Persia were in the habit of purchasing
young Turks, who were captured by the various frontier tribes
in their mutual struggles, and employing them in their
service. They generally had a body guard formed of them, and
many of them were enfranchised and rose to posts of high
influence, and in many cases supplanted their masters. The
founder of the Khuarezmian power was such a slave, named
Nushtekin, in the service of the Seljuk Sultan Malik Shah. He
rose to the position of a Teshtedar or chamberlain, which
carried with it the government of the province of Khuarezm,
that is of the fertile valley of the Oxus and the wide steppes
on either side of it, bounded on the west by the Caspian and
on the east by Bukharia." The grandson of Nushtekin became
virtually independent of the Seljuk sultan, and the two next
succeeding princes began and completed the overthrow of the
Seljuk throne. The last Seljuk sultan, Togrul III., was slain
in battle, A. D. 1193, by Takish or Tokush, the Khuarezmian
ruler, who sent his head to the Caliph at Bagdad and was
formally invested by the Caliph with the sovereignty of
Khorassan, Irak Adjem and other parts of the Persian domain
not occupied by the Atabegs and the Assassins. Takish's son
extended his conquests in Transoxiana and Turkestan (A. D.
1209), and acquired Samarkand, which he made his capital. "He
controlled an army of 400,000 men, and his dominions, at the
invasion of the Mongols, stretched from the Jaxartes to the
Persian Gulf, and from the Indus to the Irak Arab and
Azerbaidjan."
H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
part 1, pages 7-8.
{1944}
KHUAREZM: A. D. 1220.
Destruction by the Mongols.
In May, 1220, the Mongol army of Jingis Khan marched upon
Urgendj, or Khuarezm—the original capital of the empire of
Khuarezm, to which it gave its name. That city, which is
represented by the modern Khiva, was "the capital of the rich
cluster of cities that then bordered the Oxus, a river very
like the Nile in forming a strip of green across two sandy
deserts which bound it on either hand." The Mongols were
commanded, at first, by the three elder sons of Jingis Khan:
but two of them quarreled, and the siege was protracted
through six months without much progress being made. Jingis
then placed the youngest son, Ogotai, in charge of operations,
and they were carried forward more vigorously. "The Mongols at
length assaulted the town, fired its buildings with naptha,
and after seven days of desperate street-fighting captured it.
This was probably in December, 1220. They sent the artisans
and skilled workmen into Tartary, set aside the young women
and children as slaves, and then made a general massacre of
the rest of the inhabitants. They destroyed the city, and then
submerged it by opening the dykes of the Oxus. The ruins are
probably those now known as Old Urgendj. Rasehid says that
over 100,000 artisans and craftsmen were sent into Mongolia."
H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
part 1, page 85.
ALSO IN:
J. Hutton,
Central Asia,
chapter 4.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.
KHUAREZM: A. D. 1873.
Conquest by the Russians.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.
----------KHUAREZM: End--------
KHUAREZMIANS IN JERUSALEM, The.
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1242.
KICHES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES, QUICHES, and MAYAS.
KICKAPOO INDIANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
ALGONQUIAN FAMILY and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
KIEFT, Governor William, Administration of.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1638-1647.
KIEL, Peace of.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1813-1814.
----------KIEV: Start--------
KIEV, OR KIEF: A. D. 882.
Capital of the Russian state.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 862.
KIEV, OR KIEF: A. D. 1240.
Destroyed by the Mongols.
In December, 1240, the Mongols, pursuing their devastating
march through Russia, reached Kiev. It was then a famous city,
known among the Russians as "the mother of cities,
magnificently placed on the high banks of the Dnieper, with
its white walls, its beautiful gardens, and its thirty
churches, with their gilded cupolas, which gave it its pretty
Tartar name, Altundash Khan (i. e., the court of the Golden
Heads): it was the metropolitan city of the old Russian
princes, the seat of the chief patriarch of all Russia. It had
latterly, namely, in 1204, suffered from the internal broils
of the Russian princes, and had been much plundered and burnt.
It was now to be for a while erased altogether." Kiev was
taken by storm and the inhabitants "slaughtered without mercy:
the very bones were torn from the tombs and trampled under the
horses' hoofs. … The magnificent city, with the ancient
Byzantine treasures which it contained, was destroyed." During
the 14th and 15th centuries Kiev seems to have remained in
ruins, and the modern city is said to be "but a shadow of its
former self."
H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
volume 1, pages 141-142. (1876)
----------KIEV: End--------
KILIDSCH.
See TIMAR.
KILIKIA.
See CILICIA.
KILKENNY, The Statute of.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1327-1367.
KILKENNY ARTICLES, The.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1652.
KILLIECRANKIE, Battle of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 (JULY).
KILPATRICK'S RAID TO RICHMOND.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).
KILSYTH, Battle of (1645).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
KIMON, Peace of.
See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.
KINBURN, Battle of (1787).
See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
KINDERGARTEN, The.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1816-1892.
KING, Origin of the word.
"Cyning, by contraction King, is closely connected with the
word 'Cyn' or 'Kin.' … I do not feel myself called upon to
decide whether Cyning is strictly the patronymic of 'cyn,' or
whether it comes immediately from a cognate adjective (see
Allen, Royal Prerogative, 176: Kemble, i. 153). It is enough
if the two words are of the same origin, as is shown by a
whole crowd of cognates, 'cynebarn,' 'cynecyn,' 'cynedom,'
'cynehelm,' 'cynehlaford.' … (I copy from Mr. Earle's
Glossarial Index.) In all these words 'cyn' has the meaning of
'royal.' The modern High-Dutch König is an odd corruption: but
the elder form is 'Chuninc.' The word has never had an English
feminine: Queen is simply 'Cwen,' woman, wife. … The notion
of the King being the 'canning' or 'cunning' man [is] an idea
which could have occurred only to a mind on which all Teutonic
philology was thrown away."
E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 3, section 1, and note L (volume 1).
KING GEORGE'S WAR.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744: 1745: and 1745-1748.
KING MOVEMENT, The.
See NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1853-1883.
KING OF THE ROMANS.
See ROMANS, KING OF THE.
KING OF THE WOOD.
See ARICIAN GROVE.
KING PHILIP'S WAR.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675: 1675: and 1676-1678.
KING WILLIAM'S WAR.
The war in Europe, of "the Grand Alliance" against Louis XIV.
of France, frequently called "the War of the League of
Augsburg," extended to the American colonies of England and
France, and received in the former the name of King William's
War.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690;
CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690, and 1692-1697;
also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690;
and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.
KING'S BENCH.
See CURIA REGIS.
{1945}
KING'S COLLEGE.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1746-1787.
KING'S HEAD CLUB.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.
KING'S MOUNTAIN, Battle of (1780).
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.
KING'S PEACE, The.
"The peace, as it was called, the primitive alliance for
mutual good behaviour, for the performance and enforcement of
rights and duties, the voluntary restraint of free society in
its earliest form, was from the beginning of monarchy [in
early England] under the protection of the king. … But this
position is far from that of the fountain of justice and
source of jurisdiction. The king's guarantee was not the sole
safeguard of the peace; the hundred had its peace as well as
the king; the king too had a distinct peace which like that of
the church was not that of the country at large, a special
guarantee for those who were under special protection. …
When the king becomes the lord, patron and 'mundborh' of his
whole people, they pass from the ancient national peace of
which he is the guardian into the closer personal or
territorial relation of which he is the source. The peace is
now the king's peace. … The process by which the national
peace became the king's peace is almost imperceptible; and it
is very gradually that we arrive at the time at which all
peace and law are supposed to die with the old king, and rise
again at the proclamation of the new."
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 7, section 72 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
G. E. Howard,
On the Development of the King's Peace
(Nebraska University Studies, volume 1, number 3).
Sir F. Pollock,
Oxford Lectures, 3.
See, also, ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.
----------KINGSTON, Canada: Start--------
KINGSTON, Canada: A. D. 1673.
The building of Fort Frontenac.
La Salle's seigniory.
In 1673, Count Frontenac, governor of Canada, personally
superintended the construction of a fort on the north shore of
Lake Ontario, at the mouth of the Cataraqui, where the city of
Kingston now stands, the site having been recommended by the
explorer La Salle. The following year this fort, with
surrounding lands to the extent of four leagues in front and
half a league in depth, was granted in seigniory to La Salle,
he agreeing to pay the cost of its construction and to
maintain it at his own charge. He named the post Frontenac.
F. Parkman,
La Salle,
chapter. 6.
KINGSTON, Canada: A. D. 1758.
Fort Frontenac taken by the English.
See CANADA: A. D. 1758.
----------KINGSTON, Canada: End--------
KINSALE, Battle of (1601).
See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.
KINSTON, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: NORTH CAROLINA).
KIOWAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KIOWAN FAMILY.
KIPCHAKS, The.
"The Kipchaks were called Comans by European writers. … The
name Coman is derived no doubt from the river Kuma, the
country about which was known to the Persians as Kumestan. …
A part of their old country on the Kuma is still called Desht
Kipchak, and the Kumuks, who have been pushed somewhat south
by the Nogays, are, I believe, their lineal descendants.
Others of their descendants no doubt remain also among the
Krim Tartars. To the early Arab writers the Kipchaks were
known as Gusses, a name by which we also meet with them in the
Byzantine annals. This shows that they belonged to the great
section of the Turks' known as the Gusses or Oghuz Turks. …
They first invaded the country west of the Volga at the end of
the ninth century, from which time till their final dispersal
by the Mongols in the thirteenth century they were very
persistent enemies of Russia. After the Mongol conquest it is
very probable that they became an important element in the
various tribes that made up the Golden Horde or Khanate of
Kipchak."
H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
part 1, page 17.
See, also, MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294;
and RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.
KIRCH-DENKERN, OR WELLINGHAUSEN, Battle of (1761).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.
KIRGHIZ, Russian subjugation of the.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.
KIRIRI, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
KIRK OF SCOTLAND.
See CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
KIRKE'S LAMBS.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).
KIRKI, Battle of (1817).
See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.
KIRKSVILLE, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).
KIRRHA.
See DELPHI.
KISSIA.
See ELAM.
KIT KAT CLUB, The.
See CLUBS.
KITCHEN CABINET, President Jackson's.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.
KITCHEN-MIDDENS.
"Amongst the accumulations of Neolithic age which are thought
by many archæologists to be oldest are the well-known
'Kjökkenmödingr' or kitchen-middens of Denmark. These are
heaps and mounds composed principally of shells of edible
molluscs, of which the most abundant are oyster, cockle,
mussel, and periwinkle. Commingled with the shells occur bones
of mammals, birds, and fish in less or greater abundance, and
likewise many implements of stone, bone, and horn, together
with potsherds. The middens are met with generally near the
coast, and principally on the shores of the Lymfjord and the
Kattegat; they would appear, indeed, never to be found on the
borders of the North Sea. They form mounds or banks that vary
in height from 3 or 5 feet up to 10 feet, with a width of 150
to 200 feet, and a length of sometimes nearly 350 yards. …
The Danish savants (Forchhammer, Steenstrupp, and Worsaae),
who first examined these curious shell-mounds, came to the
conclusion that they were the refuse-heaps which had
accumulated round the dwellings of some ancient coast-tribe.
… Shell-mounds of similar character occur in other
countries."
J. Geikie,
Prehistoric Europe,
chapter 15.
KIT'S COTY HOUSE.
The popular name of a conspicuous Cromlech or stone burial
monument in Kent, England, near Addington.
KITTIM.
The Hebrew name of the island of Cyprus.
See, also, JAVAN.
KITUNAHAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KITUNAHAN FAMILY.
KJÖKKENMÖDINGR.
See KITCHEN-MIDDENS.
{1946}
KLAMATHS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.
KLEINE RATH, The.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.
KLEISTHENES, Constitution of.
See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.
KLEOMENIC WAR, The.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
KLERUCHS.
"Another consequence of some moment arose out of this victory
[of the Athenians over the citizens of Chalkis, or Chalcis, in
the island of Eubœa, B. C. 506—see ATHENS: B. C. 509-506].
The Athenians planted a body of 4,000 of their citizens as
Kleruchs (lot-holders) or settlers upon the lands of the
wealthy Chalkidian oligarchy called the Hippobotæ—proprietors
probably in the fertile plain of Lelantum between Chalkis and
Eretria. This is a system which we shall find hereafter
extensively followed out by the Athenians in the days of their
power; partly with the view of providing for their poorer
citizens—partly to serve as garrison among a population
either hostile or of doubtful fidelity. These Attic Kleruchs
(I can find no other name by which to speak of them) did not
lose their birthright as Athenian citizens. They were not
colonists in the Grecian sense, and they are known by a
totally different name—but they corresponded very nearly to
the colonies formerly planted out on the conquered lands by
Rome."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 31 (volume 4).
ALSO IN:
A. Boeckh,
Public Economy of Athens,
book 3, chapter 18.
See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.
KLOSTER-SEVEN, Convention of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER); and 1758.
KNECHTE, The.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.
KNIGHT-SERVICE.
See FEUDAL TENURES.
KNIGHTHOOD:
Orders of, and their modern imitations.
Alcantara.
See ALCANTARA.
KNIGHTHOOD:
American Knights.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).
KNIGHTHOOD:
Avis.
See AVIS.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Bath.
See BATH.
KNIGHTHOOD:
Black Eagle:
A Prussian Order instituted by Frederick III., Elector of
Brandenburg, in 1701.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Blue Ribbon.
See SERAPHIM.
KNIGHTHOOD:
Brethren of Dobrin.
See PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY.
KNIGHTHOOD:
Calatrava.
See CALATRAVA.
KNIGHTHOOD:
Christ: a Papal Order, instituted by Pope John XXII., in 1319;
also a Portuguese Order.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Crescent: instituted by René of Anjou, titular King of
Naples, in 1448, but suppressed by Pope Paul II., in 1464;
also a Turkish Order
See CRESCENT.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Ecu.
See BOURBON: THE HOUSE OF.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Elephant: a Danish Order, instituted in 1693, by King
Christian V.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Garter.
See GARTER.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Golden Circle.
See GOLDEN CIRCLE.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Golden Fleece.
See GOLDEN FLEECE.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Golden Horseshoe.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1710-1716.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Golden Spur: instituted by Pope Paul III., in 1550.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Guelphs of Hanover.
See GUELPHS OF HANOVER.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Holy Ghost.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.
KNIGHTHOOD:
Hospitallers.
See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Indian Empire: instituted by Queen Victoria, in 1878.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Iron Cross: a Prussian Order, instituted in 1815 by
Frederick William III.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Iron Crown.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Legion of Honor.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Lion and the Sun: a Persian Order, instituted in 1808.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Lone Star.
See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.
KNIGHTHOOD:
Malta.
See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.
KNIGHTHOOD:
Maria Theresa.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).
KNIGHTHOOD:
La Merced.
See MERCED.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Mighty Host.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).
KNIGHTHOOD:
Our Lady of Montesa.
See OUR LADY, &c.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Polar Star: a Swedish Order, of uncertain origin.
KNIGHTHOOD:
Rhodes.
See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Round Table.
See ARTHUR, KING.
KNIGHTHOOD:
St. Andrew: a Scotch Order
See ST. ANDREW;
also a Russian Order, instituted in 1698 by Peter the Great.
KNIGHTHOOD:
St. George: a Russian Order, founded by Catharine II.
KNIGHTHOOD:
St. Gregory: an Order instituted in 1831 by Pope Gregory XVI.
KNIGHTHOOD:
St. Jago or Santiago.
See CALATRAVA.
KNIGHTHOOD:
St. James of Compostella.
See CALATRAVA.
KNIGHTHOOD:
St. Januarius: instituted by Charles, King of the Two
Sicilies, in 1738.
KNIGHTHOOD:
St. John.
See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.
KNIGHTHOOD:
St. John of the Lateran: instituted in 1560, by Pope Pius IV.
KNIGHTHOOD:
St. Lazarus.
See ST. LAZARUS.
KNIGHTHOOD:
St. Louis.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).
KNIGHTHOOD:
St. Michael.
See ST. MICHAEL.
KNIGHTHOOD:
St. Michael and St. George.
See ST. MICHAEL, &c.
KNIGHTHOOD:
St. Patrick: instituted by George III. of England, in 1783.
KNIGHTHOOD:
St. Stephen.
See ST. STEPHEN.
KNIGHTHOOD:
St. Thomas of Acre.
See ST. THOMAS.
KNIGHTHOOD:
Santiago.
See CALATRAVA.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Seraphim.
See SERAPHIM.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Sons of Liberty.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Southern Cross.
See SOUTHERN CROSS.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Star.
See STAR.
KNIGHTHOOD:
Star of India.
See STAR OF INDIA.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Starry Cross.
See STARRY CROSS.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Swan.
See SWAN.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Sword: a Swedish Order.
See SWORD;
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Sword: a German Order.
See LIVONIA: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES.
KNIGHTHOOD:
Templars.
See TEMPLARS.
KNIGHTHOOD:
Teutonic.
See TEUTONIC KNIGHTS.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Thistle: instituted by James V. of Scotland, in 1530.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The Tower and Sword.
See TOWER AND SWORD.
KNIGHTHOOD:
Victoria Cross.
See VICTORIA CROSS.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The White Camellia.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.
KNIGHTHOOD:
The White Cross: an Order founded by the Grand Duke of
Tuscany, in 1814.
KNIGHTHOOD:
White Eagle: a Polish Order, instituted in 1325 by Ladislaus
IV., and revived by Augustus in 1705.
KNIGHTS.
See CHIVALRY;
also, COMITATUS.
KNIGHTS BACHELORS.
"The word 'bachelor,' from whence has come 'bachelier,' does
not signify 'bas chevalier,' but a knight who has not the
number of 'bachelles' of land requisite to display a banner:
that is to say, four 'bachelles.' The 'bachelle' was composed
of ten 'maz,' or 'meix' (farms or domains), each of which
contained a sufficiency of land for the work of two oxen
during a whole year."
J. Froissart,
Chronicles (translated by Johnes),
book 1, chapter 61, foot-note (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
Sir W. Scott,
Essay on Chivalry
R. T. Hampson,
Origines Patriciœ,
page 338.
{1947}
KNIGHTS BANNERETS.
"The name [banneret] imports the bearer of a small banner,
and, in this respect, he differed from the baron, who bore a
gonfanon or banner of war, and the simple knight, who bore a
penon. The banner, properly so called, was a square flag; the
penon, according to the illuminations of ancient manuscripts,
was a small square, having two long triangles attached to the
side opposite that which was fixed to the lance or spear.
These pendant portions resembling tails were so denominated.
Rastal defines a banneret to be a knight made upon the field
of battle, with the ceremony of cutting off the point of his
standard, and so making this like a banner. And such, he says,
are allowed to display their arms on a banner in the king's
army, like the barons. That was, no doubt, the mode of
creation; but it appears … that a knight, or an esquire of
four bacelles, or cow lands, and therefore, a bachelor, to
whom the king had presented a banner on his first battle,
became a banneret on the second; so that, in such cases, there
would be no such ceremony necessary."
R. T. Hampson.
Origines Patriciœ,
chapter 11.
KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.
During the thirteenth century there grew up in England the
practice of sending to the Great Council of the king a certain
number of knights from each shire to represent the "lesser
baronage." which had formerly possessed the privilege of
attending the council in person, but which had become more
neglectful of attendance as their numbers increased. In
theory, these knights of the shire, as they came to be called,
were representatives of that "lesser baronage" only. "But the
necessity of holding their election in the County Court
rendered any restriction of the electoral body physically
impossible. The court was composed of the whole body of
freeholders, and no sheriff could distinguish the 'aye, aye'
of the yeoman from the 'aye, aye' of the lesser baron. From
the first moment therefore of their attendance we find the
knights regarded not as mere representatives of the baronage,
but as knights of the shire, and by this silent revolution the
whole body of the rural freeholders were admitted to a share
in the government of the realm."
J. R. Green,
Short History of the English People,
chapter 4.
The history of the knights of the shire is the history of the
origin of county representation in the English Parliament. The
representation of boroughs, or towns, has a history quite
distinct. Of the leading part played by the knights of the
shire in the development and establishment of the English
Constitution Mr. Stubbs remarks ("Constitutional History of
England," chapter 17, section 272): "Both historical evidence
and the nature of the case lead to the conviction that the
victory of the constitution was won by the knights of the
shires; they were the leaders of parliamentary debate; they
were the link between the good peers and the good towns; they
were the indestructible element of the house of commons; they
were the representatives of those local divisions of the realm
which were coeval with the historical existence of the people
of England, and the interests of which were most directly
attacked by the abuses of royal prerogative."
See, also, PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH: EARLY
STAGES IN ITS EVOLUTION.
KNOW NOTHING PARTY, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.
KNOX, General Henry, in the Cabinet of President Washington.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.
KNOX, John, and the Reformation in Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557, to 1558-1560.
----------KNOXVILLE: Start--------
KNOXVILLE: A. D. 1863 (September).
Evacuated by the Confederates and occupied by the Union
forces.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE).
KNOXVILLE: A. D. 1863 (November-December).
Longstreet's siege.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER; TENNESSEE).
----------KNOXVILLE: End--------
KNUT, OR CANUTE, ERICSSON, King of Sweden, A. D. 1167-1199.
KNYDUS, OR CNYDUS, Battle of (B. C. 394).
See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
KOASSATI, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
KOLARIANS, The.
See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
KOLDING, Battle of (1849).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.
KOLIN, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).
KOLOMAN, King of Hungary, A. D. 1095-1114.
KOLUSCHAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KOLUSCHAN FAMILY.
KOMANS
COMANS
CUMANS, The.
See PATCHINAKS; KIPCHAKS; COSSACKS;
also, HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.
KOMORN, Battle of (1849).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
KONDUR, OR CONDORE, Battle of (1758).
See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.
KONIEH, Battle of (1832).
See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
KÖNIGGRÄTZ, OR SADOWA, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
KONSAARBRUCK, Battle of (1675).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
KOORDS
KURDS, The.
See CARDUCHI.
KORAN, The.
"The Koran, as Mr. Kingsley quaintly, but truly, says, 'after
all is not a book, but an irregular collection of Mohammed's
meditations and notes for sermons.' It is not a code, it is
not a journal, it is a mere gathering together of irregular
scraps, written on palm-leaves and bones of mutton, which
Abu-Bekr [the bosom friend of Mahomet and the first of the
Caliphs or successors of the Prophet] put together without the
slightest regard to chronological order, only putting the long
fragments at the beginning, and the short fragments at the
end. But so far from having the Koran of Mahomet, we have not
even the Koran of Abu-Bekr. Caliph Othman [the third Caliph],
we know, gave enormous scandal by burning all the existing
copies, which were extremely discordant, and putting forth his
own version as the 'textus ab omnibus receptus.' How much then
of the existing Koran is really Mahomet's; how much has been
lost, added, transposed, or perverted; when, where, and why
each fragment was delivered, it is often impossible even to
conjecture. And yet these baskets of fragments are positively
worshipped."
E. A. Freeman,
History and Conquests of the Saracens,
lecture 2.
ALSO IN:
S. Lane-Poole,
Studies in a Mosque,
chapter 4.
Sir W. Muir,
The Coran.
T. Nöldeke,
Sketches from Eastern History,
chapter 2.
The Koran;
translated by G. Sale.
See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
KORASMIANS, The.
See KHUAREZM.
{1948}
KOREISH, The.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
----------KORKYRA: Start--------
KORKYRA, OR CORCYRA.
The Greek island now known as Corfu, separated from the coast
of Epirus by a strait only two to seven miles in breadth, bore
in ancient times the name of Korkyra, or, rather, took that
name from its ruling city. "Korkyra [the city] was founded by
the Corinthians, at the same time (we are told) as Syracuse.
… The island was generally conceived in antiquity as the
residence of the Homeric Phæakians, and it is to this fact
that Thucydides ascribes in part the eminence of the Korkyræan
marine. According to another story, some Eretrians from Eubœa
had settled there, and were compelled to retire. A third
statement represents the Liburnians as the prior
inhabitants,—and this perhaps is the most probable, since the
Liburnians were an enterprising, maritime, piratical race, who
long continued to occupy the more northerly islands in the
Adriatic along the Illyrian and Dalmatian coast. … At the
time when the Corinthians were about to colonize Sicily, it
was natural that they should also wish to plant a settlement
at Korkyra, which was a post of great importance for
facilitating the voyage from Peloponnesus to Italy, and was
further convenient for traffic with Epirus, at that period
altogether non-Hellenic. Their choice of a site was fully
justified by the prosperity and power of the colony, which,
however, though sometimes in combination with the mother-city,
was more frequently alienated from her and hostile, and
continued so from an early period throughout most part of the
three centuries from 700-400 B. C. … Notwithstanding the
long-continued dissensions between Korkyra and Corinth, it
appears that four considerable settlements on this same line
of coast were formed by the joint enterprise of both,—Leukas
and Anaktorium to the south of the mouth of the Ambrakiotic
Gulf—and Apollonia and Epidamnus [afterwards called
Dyrrhachium], both in the territory of the Illyrians at some
distance to the north of the Akrokeraunian promontory [modern
Cape Glossa, on the Albanian coast]. … Leukas, Anaktorium
and Ambrakia are all referred to the agency of Kypselus the
Corinthian. … The six colonies just named—Korkyra,
Ambrakia, Anaktorium, Leukas [near the modern St. Maura],
Apollonia, and Epidamnus—form an aggregate lying apart from
the rest of the Hellenic name, and connected with each other,
though not always maintained in harmony, by analogy of race
and position, as well as by their common origin from Corinth."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 23.
See, also, IONIAN ISLANDS.
KORKYRA: B. C. 435-432.
Quarrel with Corinth.
Help from Athens.
Events leading to the Peloponnesian War.
See GREECE: B. C. 435-432.
KORKYRA: B. C. 432.
Great sea-fight with the Corinthians.
Athenian aid.
See GREECE: B. C. 432.
KORKYRA: Modern history.
See IONIAN ISLANDS;
and CORFU.
----------KORKYRA: End----------
KORONEA, OR CORONEA, Battle of (B. C. 394).
See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
KOS.
See Cos.
KOSCIUSKO, and the Polish revolt.
See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.
KOSSÆANS, OR COSSÆANS, The.
A brave but predatory people in ancient times, occupying the
mountains between Media and Persia, who were hunted down by
Alexander the Great and the males among them exterminated.
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 94.
KOSSOVA, Battle of (1389).
See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1360-1389.
KOSSUTH, Louis, and the Hungarian struggle for independence.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1815-1844, 1847-1849;
and AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
KOSSUTH: In America.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-'1851.
KOTZEBUE, Assassination of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1817-1820.
KOTZIM.
See CHOZIM.
KOULEVSCHA, Battle of (1829).
See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.
KOYUNJIK.
See NINEVEH.
KRALE.
See CRAL.
KRANNON, OR CRANNON, Battle of (B. C. 322).
See GREECE: B. C. 323-322.
KRASNOE, Battle of.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER);
and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
KRETE.
See CRETE.
KRIM, The Khanate of.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.
KRIM TARTARY.
See CRIMEA.
KRIMESUS, The Battle of the.
See SYRACUSE, THE FALL OF THE DIONYSIAN TYRANNY AT.
KRISSA.
KRISSÆAN WAR.
See DELPHI.
KRONIUM, Battle of.
See SICILY: B. C. 383.
KROTON.
See SYBARIS.
KRYPTEIA, The.
A secret police and system of espionage maintained at Sparta
by the ephors.
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 6.
KSHATRIYAS.
See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.
KU KLUX KLAN, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.
KUBLAI KHAN, The Empire of.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294;
and CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.
KUFA, The founding of.

See BUSSORAH AND KUFA.
KULANAPAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KULANAPAN FAMILY.
KULM, OR CULM, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (AUGUST).
KULTURKAMPF, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.
KUNAXA, Battle of (B. C. 401).
See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.
KUNBIS.
See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.
KUNERSDORF, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
KURDISTAN: A. D. 1514.
Annexed to the Ottoman Empire.
See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.
KURDS, OR KOORDS.
See CARDUCHI, THE.
KUREEM KHAN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1759-1779.
KURFÜRST.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.
KURUCS, Insurrection of the.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.
KUSAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KUSAN FAMILY.
{1949}
KUSH.
KUSHITES.
See CUSH.—CUSHITES.
KUTAYAH, Peace of (1833).
See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
KUTCHINS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
KUTSCHUK KAINARDJI, Battle and Treaty of (1774).
See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.
KYLON, Conspiracy of.
See ATHENS: B. C. 612-595.
KYMRY, OR CYMRY, The.
The name which the Britons of Wales and Cumberland gave to
themselves during their struggle with the Angles and Saxons,
meaning "Cym-bro (Combrox) or the compatriot, the native of
the country, the rightful owner of the soil. … From the
occupation by the English of the plain of the Dee and the
Mersey, the Kymry dwelt in two lands, known in quasi-Latin as
Cambria, in Welsh Cymru, which denotes the Principality of
Wales, and Cumbria, or the kingdom of Cumberland. … Kambria
was regularly used for Wales by such writers as Giraldus in
the twelfth century, … but the fashion was not yet
established of distinguishing between Cambria and Cumbria as
we do."
J. Rhys,
Celtic Britain,
chapter 4.
The term Cymry or Kymry is sometimes used in a larger sense to
denote the whole Brythonic branch of the Celtic race, as
distinguished from the Goidelic, or Gaelic; but that use of it
does not seem to be justified. On the question whether the
name Kymry, or Cymry, bears any relation to that of the
ancient Cimbri.
See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES.
KYNOSSEMA, Battle of.
See CYNOSSEMA.
KYNURIANS, OR CYNURIANS, The.
One of the three races of people who inhabited the
Peloponnesian peninsula of Greece before the Dorian
conquest,—the other two races being the Arcadians and the
Achæans. "They were never (so far as history knows them) an
independent population. They occupied the larger portion of
the territory of Argolis, from Orneæ, near the northern or
Phliasian border, to Thyrea and the Thyreatis, on the Laconian
border: and though belonging originally (as Herodotus imagines
rather than asserts) to the Ionic race—they had been so long
subjects of Argos in his time that almost all evidence of
their ante-Dorian condition had vanished."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 4.
KYRENE.
See CYRENAICA.
KYZICUS.
See CYZICUS.
LABARUM, The.
"The chief banner of the Christian emperors [Roman] was the
so-called 'labarum.' Eusebius describes it as a long lance
with a cross-piece; to the latter a square silk flag was
attached, into which the images of the reigning emperor and
his children were woven. To the point of the lance was
fastened a golden crown enclosing the monogram of Christ and
the sign of the cross."
E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
section 107.
ALSO IN:
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 20.
See CHRISTIANITY: A.D. 312-337.
LA BICOQUE, Battle of (1522).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.
LABOR ORGANIZATION.
See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.
LABRADOR, The Name.
"Labrador—Laboratoris Terra—is so called from the
circumstance that Cortereal in the year 1500 stole thence a
cargo of Indians for slaves."
F. Parkman,
Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
chapter 1, foot-note.
LABYRINTHS.
MAZES.
"The Labyrinths of the classical age and the quaint devices of
later times, the Mazes, of which they were the prototypes,
present to the archaeologist a subject of investigation which
hitherto has not received that degree of attention of which it
appears so well deserving. … Labyrinths may be divided into
several distinct classes, comprising complicated ranges of
caverns, architectural labyrinths or sepulchral buildings,
tortuous devices indicated by coloured marbles or cut in turf,
and topiary labyrinths or mazes formed by clipped hedges. …
Of the first class we may instance the labyrinth near Nauplia
in Argolis, termed that of the Cyclops, and described by
Strabo; also the celebrated Cretan example, which from the
observations of modern travellers is supposed to have
consisted of a series of caves, resembling in some degree the
catacombs of Rome or Paris. It has been questioned, however,
whether such a labyrinth actually existed. … Of
architectural labyrinths, the most extraordinary specimen was
without doubt that at the southern end of the lake Mœris in
Egypt, and about thirty miles from Arsinoe. Herodotus, who
describes it very distinctly, says that … it consisted of
twelve covered courts, 1,500 subterranean chambers, in which
the bodies of the Egyptian princes and the sacred crocodiles
were interred, and of as many chambers above ground, which
last only he was permitted to enter."
E. Trollope,
Notices of Ancient and Mediaeval Labyrinths
(Archaeological Journal, volume 15).
ALSO IN:
Herodotus,
History,
book 2, chapter 148.
LA CADIE,
ACADIA.
See NOVA SCOTIA.
LACEDÆMON.
See SPARTA: THE CITY.
LACEDÆMONIAN EMPIRE, The.
See SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.
LACONIA.
See SPARTA: THE CITY.
LACONIA, the American Province.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.
LACUSTRINE HABITATIONS.
See LAKE DWELLINGS.
LADE, Naval Battle of (B. C. 495).
See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.
LADIES' PEACE, The.
See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.
LADISLAS, King of Naples, A. D. 1386-1414.
LADISLAUS I. (called Saint),
King of Hungary, A. D. 1077-1095.
Ladislaus II., King of Hungary, 1162.
Ladislaus III., King of Hungary, 1204-1205.
Ladislaus IV. (called The Cuman),
King of Hungary, 1272-1290.
Ladislaus V. (called The Posthumous),
King, of Hungary and Bohemia, 1439-1457.
Ladislaus VI. (Jagellon),
King of Hungary, 1440-1444;
King of Poland, 1434-1444.
{1950}
LADOCEA, OR LADOKEIA, Battle of.
Fought in what was called the Cleomenic War, between
Cleomenes, king of Sparta, and the Achæan League, B. C. 226.
The battle was fought near the city of Megalopolis, in
Arcadia, which belonged to the League and which was threatened
by Cleomenes. The latter won a complete victory, and Lydiades,
of Megalopolis, one of the noblest of the later Greeks, was
slain.
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 62.
LADY, Original use of the title.
"Hlæfdige," the Saxon word from which our modern English word
"lady" comes, was the highest female title among the
West-Saxons, being reserved for the king's wife.
E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
volume 1, note F.
LADY OF THE ENGLISH.
By the custom of the West Saxons, the king's wife was called
Lady, not Queen, and when the Wessex kingdom widened to cover
England, its queen was known as the Lady of the English.
LÆNLAND.
"Either book land or folkland could be leased out by its
holders [in early England]; and, under the name of 'lænland,'
held by free cultivators."
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 5, section 36 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
J. M. Kemble,
The Saxons in England,
book 1, chapter 11.
LÆTI.
LÆT.
LAZZI.
"Families of the conquered tribes of Germany, who were
forcibly settled within the 'limes' of the Roman provinces, in
order that they might repeople desolated districts, or replace
the otherwise dwindling provincial population—in order that
they might bear the public burdens and minister to the public
needs, i. e., till the public land, pay the public tribute,
and also provide for the defence of the empire. They formed a
semi-servile class, partly agricultural and partly military;
they furnished corn for the granaries and soldiers for the
cohorts of the empire, and were generally known in later times
by the name of Læti or Liti."
F. Seebohm,
English Village Community,
chapter 8.
"There seems to be no reason for questioning that the eorl,
ceorl and læt of the earliest English laws, those of
Ethelbert, answer exactly to the edhiling, the friling and the
lazzus of the old Saxons. Whether the Kentish læts were of
German origin has been questioned. Lappenberg thinks they were
'unfree of kindred race.' K. Maurer thinks them a relic of
ancient British population who came between the free wealh and
the slave. … The name (lazzus= slow or lazy) signifies
condition, not nationality. … The wer-gild of the Kentish
læt was 40, 60, or 80 shillings, according to rank, that of
the ceorl being 200."
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 4, section 31, foot-note (volume 1).
LA FAVORITA, Battle of (1797).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
LAFAYETTE IN THE WAR OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778 (JUNE), (JULY-NOVEMBER);
1780 (JULY); 1781 (JANUARY-MAY),
and (MAY-OCTOBER).
LAFAYETTE:
And the French Revolution.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JULY), to 1792 (AUGUST).
LA FÈRE, Siege and capture by Henry IV. of France (1596).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.
LA FÈRE-CHAMPENOISE, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
LAGIDE PRINCES.
The Egyptian dynasty founded by Ptolemy Soter, the Macedonian
general, is sometimes called the Lagide dynasty and its
princes the Lagide princes, with reference to the reputed
father of Ptolemy, who bore the name of Lagus.
LAGOS, Naval Battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
LAGTHING.
See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.
LA HOGUE, Naval Battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.
LAKE DWELLINGS.
"Among the most interesting relics of antiquity which have yet
been discovered are the famous lake-dwellings of Switzerland,
described by Dr. Keller and others. … Dr. Keller … has
arranged them in three groups, according to the character of
their substructure.
[1] Those of the first group, the Pile Dwellings, are, he
tells us, by far the most numerous in the lakes of Switzerland
and Upper Italy. In these the substructure consists of piles
of various kinds of wood, sharpened sometimes by fire,
sometimes by stone hatchets or celts, and in later times by
tools of bronze, and probably of iron, the piles being driven
into the bottom of the lake at various distances from the
shore. …
[2] The Frame Pile-Dwellings are very rare. 'The distinction
between this form and the regular pile-settlement consists in
the fact that the piles, instead of having been driven into
the mud of the lake, had been fixed by a mortise-and-tenon
arrangement into split trunks, lying horizontally on the bed
of the lake.' …
[3] In the Fascine Dwellings, as Dr. Keller terms his third
group of lake-habitations, the substructure consisted of
successive layers of sticks or small stems of trees built up
from the bottom of the lake till they reached above the
lake-level. …
Lake-dwellings have been met with in many other regions of
Europe besides Switzerland and Italy, as in Bavaria, Austria,
Hungary, Mecklenburg, Pomerania, France, Wales, Ireland, and
Scotland. The 'Crannoges' of Ireland and Scotland were rather
artificial islands than dwellings like those described above."
J. Geikie,
Prehistoric Europe,
pages 369-372.
ALSO IN:
F. Keller,
Lake Dwellings.
R. Munro,
Ancient Scottish Lake Dwellings.
E. P. S.,
Crannoges (in Archaeological Journal, volume 3).
LAKE GEORGE, Battle of.
See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).
LAMARTINE, and the French Government of 1848.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1848 (FEBRUARY-MAY),
and (APRIL-DECEMBER).
LAMAS.
LAMAISM.
"The development of the Buddhist doctrine which has taken
place in the Panjab, Nepal, and Tibet … has resulted at last
in the complete establishment of Lamaism, a religion not only
in many points different from, but actually antagonistic to,
the primitive system of Buddhism; and this not only in its
doctrine, but also in its church organization." Tibet is "the
only country where the Order has become a hierarchy, and
acquired temporal power. Here, as in so many other countries,
civilization entered and history began with Buddhism. When the
first missionaries went there is not, however, accurately
known; but Nepal was becoming Buddhist in the 6th century, and
the first Buddhist king of Tibet sent to India for the holy
scriptures in 632 A. D. A century afterwards an adherent of
the native devil-worship drove the monks away, destroyed the
monasteries, and burnt the holy books; but the blood of the
martyrs was the seed of the church—it returned triumphant
after his death, and rapidly gained in wealth and influence.
…
{1951}
As the Order became wealthy, rival abbots had contended for
supremacy, and the chiefs had first tried to use the church as
a means of binding the people to themselves, and then,
startled at its progress, had to fight against it for their
own privilege and power. When, in the long run, the crozier
proved stronger than the sword, the Dalai Lama became in 1419
sole temporal sovereign of Tibet."
T. W. Rhys Davids,
Buddhism,
chapters 8-9.
"Up to the moment of its conversion to Buddhism, a profound
darkness had rested on [Tibet]. The inhabitants were ignorant
and uncultivated, and their indigenous religion, sometimes
called Bon, consisted chiefly of magic based on a kind of
Shamanism. … The word is said to be of Tungusic origin, and
to be used as a name for the earliest religion of Mongolia,
Siberia and other Northern countries. … It is easy to
understand that the chief function of the Shamans, or
wizard-priests, was to exorcise evil demons, or to propitiate
them by sacrifices and various magical practices. … The
various gradations of the Tibetan hierarchy are not easily
described, and only a general idea of them can be given. …
First and lowest in rank comes the novice or junior monk,
called Gethsul (Getzul). … Secondly and higher in rank we
have the rull monk, called Gelong (or Gelon). … Thirdly we
have the superior Gelong or Khanpo (strictly mKhan po), who
has a real right to the further title Lama. … As the chief
monk in a monastery he may be compared to the European Abbot.
… Some of the higher Khanpo Lamas are supposed to be living
re-incarnations or re-embodiments of certain canonized saints
and Bodhi-sattvas who differ in rank. These are called Avatara
Lamas, and of such there are three degrees. … There is also
a whole class of mendicant Lamas. … Examples of the highest
Avataras are the two quasi-Popes, or spiritual Kings, who are
supreme Lamas of the Yellow sect—the one residing at Lhassa,
and the other at Tashi Lunpo (Krashi Lunpo), about 100 miles
distant. … The Grand Lama at Lhassa is the Dalai Lama, that
is, 'the Ocean-Lama, or one whose power and learning are as
great as the ocean. … The other Grand Lama, who resides in
the monastery of Tashi Lunpo, is known in Europe under the
names of the Tashi Lama."
Sir M. Monier-Williams,
Buddhism,
lecture 11.
"Kublai-Khan, after subduing China [see CHINA: A. D.
1259-1294], adopted the Buddhist doctrines, which had made
considerable progress among the Tartars. In the year 1261 he
raised a Buddhist priest named Mati to the dignity of head of
the Faith in the empire. This priest is better known under the
name of Pakbo Lama, or supreme Lama: he was a native of
Thibet, and had gained the good graces and confidence of
Kublai, who, at the same time that he conferred on him the
supreme sacerdotal office, invested him with the temporal
power in Thibet, with the titles of 'King of the Great and
Precious Law,' and 'Institutor of the Empire.' Such was the
origin of the Grand Lamas of Thibet, and it is not impossible
that the Tartar Emperor, who had had frequent communications
with the Christian missionaries, may have wished to create a
religious organisation after the model of the Romish
hierarchy."
Abbé Huc,
Christianity in China, Tartary and Thibet,
volume 2, page 10.
ALSO IN:
Abbé Huc,
Journey through Tartary, Thibet and China,
volume 2.
W. W. Rockhill,
The Land of the Lamas.
LAMBALLE, Madame de, The death of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
LAMBETH, Treaty of.
A treaty of September 11, A. D. 1217, which was, in a certain
sense, the sequel of Magna Carta. The barons who extorted the
Great Charter from King John in 1215 were driven subsequently
to a renewal of war with him. They renounced their allegiance
and offered the crown to a French prince, Louis, husband of
Blanche of Castile, who was John's niece. The pretensions of
Louis were maintained after John's death, against his young
son, Henry III. The cause of the latter triumphed in a
decisive battle fought at Lincoln, May 20, 1217, and the
contest was ended by the treaty named above. "The treaty of
Lambeth is, in practical importance, scarcely inferior to the
Charter itself.
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 14, section 170 (volume 2).
LAMEGO, The Cortes of.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.
LAMIAN WAR, The.
See GREECE: B. C. 323-322.
LAMONE, Battle of (1425).
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
LAMPADARCHY, The.
See LITURGIES.
LANCASTER, Chancellorship of the Duchy of.
"The Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster is an office
more remarkable for its antiquity than for its present
usefulness. It dates from the time of Henry the Fourth, when
the County of Lancashire was under a government distinct from
the rest of the Kingdom. About the only duty now associated
with the office is the appointment of magistrates for the
county of Lancashire. In the other English and Welsh counties,
these appointments are made by the Lord High Chancellor, who
is the head of the Judicial system. The duties of the
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are thus exceedingly
light. The holder of the office is often spoken of as 'the
maid of all work to the Cabinet,' from the fact that he is
accorded a place in the Cabinet without being assigned any
special duties likely to occupy the whole of his time. Usually
the office is bestowed upon some statesman whom it is
desirable for special reasons to have in the Cabinet, but for
whom no other office of equal rank or importance is
available."
E. Porritt,
The Englishman at Home,
chapter 8.
LANCASTER, House of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1399-1471.
LANCASTRIANS.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.
LANCES, Free.
With Sir John Hawkwood and his "free company" of English
mercenaries, "came first into Italy [about 1360] the use of
the term 'lances,' as applied to hired troops; each 'lance'
being understood to consist of three men; of whom one carried
a lance, and the others were bowmen. … They mostly fought on
foot, having between each two archers a lance, which was held
as men hold their hunting-spears in a boar-hunt."
T. A. Trollope,
History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
volume 2, page 144.
LAND GRANTS FOR SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA:
A. D. 1785-1800; 1862; and 1862-1886.
{1952}
LAND LEAGUE, The.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879; and 1881-1882.
LAND QUESTION AND LAND LAWS, The Irish.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1870-1894.
LANDAMMANN.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.
----------LANDAU: Start--------
LANDAU: A. D. 1648.
Cession to France.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
LANDAU: A. D. 1702-1703.
Taken by the Imperialists and retaken by the French.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1702; and 1703.
LANDAU: A. D. 1704.
Taken by the Allies.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.
LANDAU: A. D. 1713.
Taken and retained by France.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
----------LANDAU: End--------
LANDEN, OR NEERWINDEN, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).
LANDFRIEDE.
FEHDERECHT.
THE SWABIAN LEAGUE.
"Landfriede—Peace of the Land.
The expression, Public Peace, which, in deference to numerous
and high authorities I have generally used in the text, is
liable to important objections. 'A breach of the public peace'
means, in England, any open disorder or outrage. But [in
mediæval Germany] the Landfriede (Pax publica) was a special
act or provision directed against the abuse of an ancient and
established institution,—the Fehderecht (jus diffidationis,
or right of private warfare). The attempts to restrain this
abuse were, for a long time, local and temporary. … The
first energetic measure of the general government to put down
private wars was that of the diet of Nürnberg (1466). … The
Fehde is a middle term between duel and war. Every affront or
injury led, after certain formalities, to the declaration,
addressed to the offending party, that the aggrieved party
would be his foe, and that of his helpers and
helpers'-helpers. … I shall not go into an elaborate
description of the evils attendant on the right of diffidation
or private warfare (Fehderecht); they were probably not so
great as is commonly imagined."
L. Ranke,
History of the Reformation in Germany,
volume 1, pages 77 (foot-note), 71, and 81.
"The right of diffidation, or of private warfare, had been the
immemorial privilege of the Germanic nobles—a privilege as
clear as it was ancient, which no diet attempted to abolish,
but which, from the mischiefs attending its exercise, almost
everyone had endeavoured to restrain. … Not only state,
could declare war against state, prince against prince, noble
against noble, but any noble could legally defy the emperor
himself." In the reign of Frederick III. (1440-1493) efforts
were made to institute a tribunal—an imperial chamber—which
should have powers that would operate to restrain these
private wars; but the emperor and the college of princes could
not agree as to the constitution of the court proposed. To
attain somewhat the same end, the emperor then "established a
league both of the princes and of the imperial cities, which
was destined to be better observed than most preceding
confederations. Its object was to punish all who, during ten
years, should, by the right of diffidation, violate the public
tranquillity. He commenced with Swabia, which had ever been
regarded as the imperial domain; and which, having no elector,
no governing duke, no actual head other than the emperor
himself, and, consequently, no other acknowledged protector,
was sufficiently disposed to his views. In its origin the
Swabian league consisted only of six cities, four prelates,
three counts, sixteen knights; but by promises, or reasoning,
or threats, Frederic soon augmented it. The number of towns
was raised to 22, of prelates to 13, of counts to 12, of
knights or inferior nobles to 350. It derived additional
strength from the adhesion of princes and cities beyond the
confines of Swabia; and additional splendour from the names of
two electors, three margraves, and other reigning princes. It
maintained constantly on foot 10,000 infantry and 1,000
cavalry,—a force generally sufficient for the preservation of
tranquillity. Of its salutary effects some notion may be
formed from the fact that, in a very short period,
one-and-forty bandit dens were stormed, and that two powerful
offenders, George duke of Bavaria, and duke Albert of Munich,
were compelled by an armed force to make satisfaction for
their infraction of the public peace."
S. A. Dunham,
History of the Germanic Empire,
volume 2, pages 281-283.
The final suppression of the Fehderecht was brought about in
the succeeding reign, of Maximilian, by the institution of the
Imperial Chamber and the organization of the Circles to
enforce its decrees.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.
LANDO, Pope, A. D. 913-914.
----------LANDRECIES: Start--------
LANDRECIES: A. D. 1647.
Spanish siege and capture.
See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.
LANDRECIES: A. D. 1655.
Siege and capture by Turenne.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.
LANDRECIES: A. D. 1659.
Ceded to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
LANDRECIES: A. D. 1794.
Siege and capture by the Allies.
Recovery by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).
----------LANDRECIES: End--------
LANDRIANO, Battle of (1529).
See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.
LANDSHUT, Battle of (1760).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1760.
LANDSHUT, Battle of (1809.)
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809, (JANUARY-JUNE).
LANDSQUENETS.
"After the accession of Maximilian I. [Emperor, A. D.
1493-1519], the troops so celebrated in history under the name
of 'Landsquenets' began to be known in Europe. They were
native Germans, and soon rose to a high degree of military
estimation. That Emperor, who had studied the art of war, and
who conducted it on principles of Tactics, armed them with
long lances; divided them into regiments, composed of ensigns
and squads; compelled them to submit to a rigorous discipline,
and retained them under their standards after the conclusion
of the wars in which he was engaged. … Pikes were
substituted in the place of their long lances, under Charles
V."
Sir N. W. Wraxall,
History of France, 1574-1610,
volume 2, page 183.
LANDSTING.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES
(DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874;
and CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.
LANDWEHR, The.
See FYRD.
LANGENSALZA, Battle at (1075).
See SAXONY: A. D. 1073-1075.
LANGENSALZA, Battle at (1866.)
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
LANGOBARDI, The.
See LOMBARDS.
LANGPORT, Battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
{1953}
LANG'S NEK, Battle of (1881).
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.
LANGSIDE, Battle of (1568).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.
LANGUE D'OC.
"It is well known that French is in the main a descendant from
the Latin, not the Latin of Rome, but the corrupter Latin
which was spoken in Gaul. Now these Latin-speaking Gauls did
not, for some reason, say 'est,' 'it is,' for 'yes,' as the
Romans did; but they used a pronoun, either 'ille,' 'he,' or
'hoc,' 'this.' When, therefore, a Gaul desired to say 'yes,'
he nodded, and said 'he' or else 'this,' meaning 'He is so,'
or 'This is so.' As it happens the Gauls of the north said
'ille,' and those of the south said 'hoc,' and these words
gradually got corrupted into two meaningless words, 'oui' and
'oc.' It is well known that the people in the south of France
were especially distinguished by using the word 'oc' instead
of 'oui' for 'yes,' so that their 'dialect' got to be called
the 'langue d'oc,' and this word Langue-doc gave the name to a
province of France."
C. F. Keary,
Dawn of History,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
F. Hueffer,
The Troubadours,
chapter 1.
Sir G. C. Lewis,
The Romance Languages,
page 52, and after.
LANGUEDOC.
When, as a consequence of the Albigensian wars, the dominions
of the Counts of Toulouse were broken up and absorbed for the
most part in the domain of the French crown, the country which
had been chiefly ravaged in those wars, including Septimania
and much of the old county of Toulouse, acquired the name by
which its language was known—Languedoc. The 'langue d'oc'
was spoken likewise in Provence and in Aquitaine; but it gave
a definite geographical name only to the region between the
Rhone and the Garonne.
See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229;
also, PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.
LANNES, Marshal, Campaigns of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY);
GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER);
SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER),
1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH), 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY);
and GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).
LANSDOWNE, Lord, The Indian administration of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1880-1893.
----------LAON: Start--------
LAON:
The last capital of the Carolingian kings.
The rock-lifted castle and stronghold of Laon, situated in the
modern department of Aisne, about 74 miles northeast from
Paris, was the last refuge and capital—sometimes the sole
dominion—of the Carolingian kings, in their final struggle
with the new dynasty sprung from the Dukes of France. The
"King of Laon" and the "King of St. Denis," as the contestants
are sometimes called, disputed with one another for a monarchy
which was small when the sovereignty of the two had been
united in one. In 991 the "King of Laon" was betrayed to his
rival, Hugh Capet, and died in prison. "Laon ceased to be a
capital, and became a quiet country town; the castle, relic of
those days, stood till 1832, when it was rased to the ground."
G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
volume 1, book 3, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, part 2, chapter 4,
parts 1-2 (volume 2).
See, also,
FRANCE: A. D. 877-987.
LAON: A. D. 1594.
Siege and capture by Henry IV.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.
LAON, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
----------LAON: End--------
LAPITHÆ, The.
A race which occupied in early times the valley of the Peneus,
in Thessaly; "a race which derived its origin from Almopia in
Macedonia, and was at least very nearly connected with the
Minyans and Æolians of Ephyra."
C. O. Müller,
History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
book 1, chapter 1.
LA PLATA, Provinces of.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.
LA PUERTA, Battle of (1814).
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1821.
LARGS, Battle of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1263.
LARISSA.
There were several ancient cities in Greece and Asia Minor
called Larissa.
See ARGOS, and PERRHÆBIANS.
LAROCHEJACQUELIN, Henri de, and the insurrection in La Vendée.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-APRIL); (JUNE);
and (JULY-DECEMBER).
LA ROCHELLE.
See ROCHELLE.
LA ROTHIERÈ, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
LA SALLE'S EXPLORATIONS.
See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.
LAS CASAS, The humane labors of.
See SLAVERY: MODERN: OF THE INDIANS.
LAS CRUCES, Battle of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.
LASSI,
LAZZI, The.
See LÆTI.
LASWARI, Battle of (1803).
See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
LATERAN, The.
"The Lateran derives its name from a rich patrician family,
whose estates were confiscated by Nero. … It afterwards
became an imperial residence, and a portion of it … was
given by Constantine to Pope Melchiades in 312,—a donation
which was confirmed to St. Sylvester, in whose reign the first
basilica was built here. … The ancient Palace of the Lateran
was the residence of the popes for nearly 1,000 years. … The
modern Palace of the Lateran was built from designs of Fontana
by Sixtus V. In 1693 Innocent XII. turned it into a
hospital,—in 1438 Gregory XVI. appropriated it as a museum."
A. J. C. Hare,
Walks in Rome,
chapter 13.
LATHES OF KENT.
"The county of Kent [England] is divided into six 'lathes,' of
nearly equal size, having the jurisdiction of the hundreds in
other shires. The lathe may be derived from the Jutish
'lething' (in modern Danish 'leding')—a military levy."
T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
chapter 1, foot-note.
LATHOM HOUSE, Siege of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (JANUARY).
LATIFUNDIA.
The great slave-tilled estates of the Romans, which swallowed
up the properties of the small land-holders of earlier times,
were called Latifundia.
LATIN CHURCH, The.
The Roman Catholic Church (see PAPACY) is often referred to as
the Latin Church, in distinction from the Greek or Orthodox
Church of the East.
LATIN EMPIRE AT CONSTANTINOPLE.
See ROMANIA, THE EMPIRE OF.
LATIN LANGUAGE IN THE MIDDLE AGES.
See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.
{1954}
"LATIN NAME," The.
"We must … explain what was meant in the sixth century of
Rome [third century B. C.] by the 'Latin name.' … The Latin
name was now extended far beyond its old geographical limits,
and was represented by a multitude of flourishing cities
scattered over the whole of Italy, from the frontier of
Cisalpine Gaul to the southern extremity of Apulia. … Not
that they were Latins in their origin, or connected with the
cities of the old Latium: on the contrary they were by
extraction Romans; they were colonies founded by the Roman
people, and consisting of Roman Citizens: but the Roman
government had resolved that, in their political relations,
they should be considered, not as Romans, but as Latins; and
the Roman settlers, in consideration of the advantages which
they enjoyed as colonists, were content to descend politically
to a lower condition than that which they had received as
their birthright. The states of the Latin name, whether cities
of old Latium or Roman colonies, all enjoyed their own laws
and municipal government, like the other allies; and all were,
like the other allies, subject to the sovereign dominion of
the Romans. They were also so much regarded as foreigners that
they could not buy or inherit land from Roman citizens; nor
had they generally the right of intermarriage with Romans. But
they had two peculiar privileges: one, that any Latin who left
behind him a son in his own city, to perpetuate his family
there, might remove to Rome, and acquire the Roman franchise;
the other, that every person who had held any magistracy or
distinguished office in a Latin state, might become at once a
Roman citizen."
T. Arnold,
History of Rome,
chapter 41.
LATINS, Subjugation of, by the Romans.
See ROME: B. C. 339-338.
LATIUM.
THE OLD LATINS.
"The plain of Latium must have been in primeval times the
scene of the grandest conflicts of nature, while the slowly
formative agency of water deposited, and the eruptions of
mighty volcanoes upheaved, the successive strata of that soil
on which was to be decided the question to what people the
sovereignty of the world should belong. Latium is bounded on
the east by the mountains of the Sabines and Aequi, which form
part of the Apennines; and on the south by the Volscian range
rising to the height of 4,000 feet, which is separated from
the main chain of the Apennines by the ancient territory of
the Hernici, the table-land of the Sacco (Trerus, a tributary
of the Liris), and stretching in a westerly direction
terminates in the promontory of Terracina. On the west its
boundary is the sea, which on this part of the coast forms but
few and indifferent harbours. On the north it imperceptibly
merges into the broad highlands of Etruria. The region thus
enclosed forms a magnificent plain traversed by the Tiber, the
'mountain-stream' which issues from the Umbrian, and by the
Anio, which rises in the Sabine mountains. Hills here and
there emerge, like islands, from the plain; some of them steep
limestone cliffs, such as that of Soracte in the north-east,
and that of the Circeian promontory on the south-west, as well
as the similar though lower height of the Janiculum near Rome;
others volcanic elevations, whose extinct craters had become
converted into lakes which in some cases still exist; the most
important of these is the Alban range, which, free on every
side, stands forth from the plain between the Volscian chain
and the river Tiber. Here settled the stock which is known to
history under the name of the Latins, or, as they were
subsequently called by way of distinction from the Latin
communities beyond the bounds of Latium, the 'Old Latins'
('prisci Latini'). But the territory occupied by them, the
district of Latium, was only a small portion of the central
plain of Italy. All the country north of the Tiber was to the
Latins a foreign and even hostile domain, with whose
inhabitants no lasting alliance, no public peace, was
possible, and such armistices as were concluded appear always
to have been for a limited period. The Tiber formed the
northern boundary from early times. … We find, at the time
when our history begins, the flat and marshy tracts to the
south of the Alban range in the hands of Umbro-Sabellian
stocks, the Rutuli and Volsci; Ardea and Velitrae are no
longer in the number of originally Latin towns. Only the
central portion of that region between the Tiber, the spurs of
the Apennines, the Alban Mount, and the sea—a district of
about 700 square miles, not much larger than the present
canton of Zurich—was Latium proper, the 'plain,' as it
appears to the eye of the observer from the heights of Monte
Cavo. Though the country is a plain, it is not monotonously
flat. With the exception of the sea-beach which is sandy and
formed in part by the accumulations of the Tiber, the level is
everywhere broken by hills of tufa moderate in height, though
often somewhat steep, and by deep fissures of the ground.
These alternating elevations and depressions of the surface
lead to the formation of lakes in winter; and the exhalations
proceeding in the heat of summer from the putrescent organic
substances which they contain engender that noxious
fever-laden atmosphere, which in ancient times tainted the
district as it taints it at the present day."
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 3.
See, also, ITALY, ANCIENT.
LATT, OR LIDUS, The.
See SLAVERY: MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.
LATTER DAY SAINTS, Church of.
See MORMONISM: A. D. 1805-1830.
LAUD, Archbishop, Church tyranny of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1633-1640.
LAUDER BRIDGE.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1482-1488.
LAUDERDALE, Duke of.
His oppression in Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1669-1679.
LAUFFENBURG, Captured by Duke Bernhard (1637).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
LAURAS.
"The institution of Lauras was the connecting link between the
hermitage and the monastery, in the later and more ordinary
use of that word. … A Laura was an aggregation of separate
cells, under the not very strongly defined control of a
superior, the inmates meeting together only on the first and
last days, the old and new Sabbaths, of each week, for their
common meal in the refectory and for common worship. … The
origin of the word 'Laura' is uncertain. … Probably it is
another form of 'labra,' the popular term in Alexandria for an
alley or narrow court."
I. G. Smith,
Christian Monasticism,
pages 38-39.
{1955}
LAUREATE, English Poets.
"From the appointment of Chaucer about five hundred years have
elapsed, and during that period a long line of poets have held
the title of Laureate. For the first two hundred years they
were somewhat irregularly appointed, but from the creation of
Richard Edwards in 1561, they come down to the present time
without interruption. The selection of the Laureate has not
always been a wise one, but the list contains the names of a
few of our greatest authors, and the honour was certainly
worthily bestowed upon Edmund Spenser, Ben Jonson, John
Dryden, Robert Southey, William Wordsworth, and Alfred
Tennyson. As the custom of crowning successful poets appears
to have been in use since the origin of poetry itself, the
office of Poet Laureate can certainly boast of considerable
antiquity, and the laurel wreath of the Greeks and Romans was
an envied trophy long before our Druidical forefathers held
aloft the mistletoe bough in their mystic rites. From what
foreign nation we first borrowed the idea of a King of the
Poets is doubtful."
W. Hamilton, Origin of the Office of Poet Laureate
(Royal Historical Society, Transactions, volume 8).
The following is a list of the Poets Laureate of England, with
the dates of their appointment:
Geoffrey Chaucer, 1368;
Sir John Gower, 1400;
Henry Scogan;
John Kay;
Andrew Bernard, 1486;
John Skelton, 1489;
Robert Whittington, 1512;
Richard Edwards, 1561;
Edmund Spenser, 1590;
Samuel Daniel, 1598;
Ben Jonson, 1616;
Sir William Davenant, 1638;
John Dryden, 1670;
Thomas Shadwell, 1688;
Nahum Tate, 1692;
Nicholas Rowe, 1715;
Rev. Laurence Eusden, 1718;
Colley Cibber, 1730;
William Whitehead, 1757;
Thomas Warton, 1785;
Henry James Pye, 1790;
Robert Southey, 1813;
William Wordsworth, 1843;
Alfred Tennyson, 1850.
W. Hamilton,
The Poets Laureate of England.
LAURIUM, Silver Mines of.
These mines, in Attica, were owned and worked at an early time
by the Athenian state, and seem to have yielded a large
revenue, more or less of which was divided among the citizens.
It was by persuading the Athenians to forego that division
that Themistocles secured money to build the fleet which made
Athens a great naval power. The mines were situated in the
southern part of Attica, in a district of low hills, not far
from the promontory of Sunium.
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 39.
LAUSITZ.
See BRANDENBURG.
LAUTULÆ, Battle of.
See ROME: B. C. 343-290.
LAW, John, and his Mississippi Scheme.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720;
and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.
----------LAW: Start----------
LAW. [Prepared for this work by Austin Abbott, Dean of the
New York University Law School.]
The subject is here treated with reference to the history of
the rights of persons and property, and that of procedure,
rather than in its political and economic aspects, which are
discussed under other heads. And those parts of the history of
law thus considered which enter into our present systems are
given the preference in space,—purely historical matters,
such as the Roman Law, being treated elsewhere, as indicated
in the references placed at the end of this article:
----------ADMIRALTY LAW: Start----------
ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1183.
Law as to Shipwrecks.
"The Emperor Constantine, or Antonine (for there is some doubt
as to which it was), had the honour of being the first to
renounce the claim to shipwrecked property in favor of the
rightful owner. But the inhuman customs on this subject were
too deeply rooted to be eradicated by the wisdom and vigilance
of the Roman law givers. The legislation in favor of the
unfortunate was disregarded by succeeding emperors, and when
the empire itself was overturned by the northern barbarians,
the laws of humanity were swept away in the tempest, and the
continual depredations of the Saxons and Normans induced the
inhabitants of the western coasts of Europe to treat all
navigators who were thrown by the perils of the sea upon their
shores as pirates, and to punish them as such, without inquiry
or discrimination. The Emperor Andronicus Comnenus, who
reigned at Constantinople in 1183, made great efforts to
repress this inhuman practice. His edict was worthy of the
highest praise, but it ceased to be put in execution after his
death. … Valin says, it was reserved to the ordinances of
Lewis XIV. to put the finishing stroke towards the extinction
of this species of piracy, by declaring that shipwrecked
persons and property were placed under the special protection
and safe guard of the crown, and the punishment of death
without hope of pardon, was pronounced against the guilty."
James Kent,
International Law,
edited by J. T. Abdy, page 31.
ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1537.
Jurisdiction.
The Act of 28 Henry VIII., c. 15, granted jurisdiction to the
Lord High Admiral of England.
ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1575.
Jurisdiction.
"The Request of the Judge of the Admiralty, to the Lord Chief

Justice of her Majesty's Bench, and his Colleagues, and the
Judges' Agreement 7th May 1575,"—by which the long
controversy between these Courts as to their relative
jurisdiction was terminated, will be found in full in
Benedict's American Admiralty,
3d edition, page 41.
ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1664.
Tide-mark.
The space between high and low water mark is to be taken as
part of the sea, when the tide is in.
Erastus C. Benedict,
American Admiralty, 3d edition,
by Robert D. Benedict, page 35,
citing Sir John Constable's Case,
Anderson's Rep. 89.
ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1789.
United States Judiciary Act.
The Act of 1789 declared admiralty jurisdiction to extend to
all cases "where the seizures are made on waters which are
navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons
burthen."
Judiciary Act,
United States Stat. at Large,
volume 1, page 76.
ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1798.
Lord Stowell and Admiralty Law.
"Lord Mansfield, at a very early period of his judicial life,
introduced to the notice of the English bar the Rhodian laws,
the Consolato del mare, the laws of Oleron, the treatises of
Roccus, the laws of Wisbuy, and, above all, the marine
ordinances of Louis XIV., and the commentary of Valin. These
authorities were cited by him in Luke v. Lyde [2 Burr. 882],
and from that time a new direction was given to English
studies, and new vigor, and more liberal and enlarged views,
communicated to forensic investigations.
{1956}
Since the year 1798, the decisions of Sir William Scott (now
Lord Stowell) on the admiralty side of Westminster Hall, have
been read and admired in every region of the republic of
letters, as models of the most cultivated and the most
enlightened human reason. … The doctrines are there reasoned
out at large, and practically applied. The arguments at the
bar, and the opinions from the bench, are intermingled with
the greatest reflections, … the soundest policy, and a
thorough acquaintance with all the various topics which
concern the great social interests of mankind."
James Kent,
Commentaries,
part 5, lecture 42.
ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1841-1842.
Jurisdiction.
The act 3 and 4 Vic., c. 65, restored to the English Admiralty
some jurisdiction of which it had been deprived by the Common
Law Courts.
Benedict's Am. Admiralty,
page 56.
ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1845.
Extension of Admiralty Jurisdiction.
"It took the Supreme Court of the United States more than
fifty years to reject the antiquated doctrine of the English
courts, that admiralty jurisdiction was confined to salt
water, or water where the tide ebbed and flowed. Congress in
1845 passed an act extending the admiralty jurisdiction of the
Federal courts to certain cases upon the great lakes, and the
navigable waters connecting the same. The constitutionality of
this act was seriously questioned, and it was not till 1851
that the Supreme Court, by a divided court, in the case of the
Genesee Chief, which collided with another vessel on Lake
Ontario, sustained the constitutionality of the act, and
repudiated the absurd doctrine that tides had anything to do
with the admiralty jurisdiction conferred by the constitution
upon Federal courts."
Lyman Trumbull,
Precedent versus Justice, American Law Review,
volume 27, page 324.
See, also
Act of 1845, 5 U. S. Stat. at L. 726.
ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1873.
Division of Loss in case of Collision
settled by Judicature Act.
"The rule that where both ships are at fault for a collision
each shall recover half his loss from the other, contradicts
the old rule of the common law that a plaintiff who is guilty
of contributory negligence can recover nothing. This conflict
between the common law and the law of the Admiralty was put an
end to in 1873 by the Judicature Act of that year, which (s.
25, subs. 9) provides that 'if both ships shall be found to
have been in fault' the Admiralty rule shall prevail. …
There can be no doubt that in some instances it works positive
injustice; as where it prevents the innocent cargo-owner from
recovering more than half his loss from one of the two
wrong-doing shipowners. And recent cases show that it works in
an arbitrary and uncertain manner when combined with the
enactments limiting the shipowner's liability for damage done
by his ship. The fact, however, remains, that it has been in
operation with the approval of the shipping community for at
least two centuries, and probably for a much longer period;
and an attempt to abolish it at the time of the passing of the
Judicature Acts met with no success. The true reason of its
very general acceptance is probably this—that it gives effect
to the principle of distributing losses at sea, which is
widely prevalent in maritime affairs. Insurance, limitation of
shipowner's liability, and general average contribution are
all connected, more or less directly, with this principle."
R. G. Marsden,
Two Points of Admiralty Law,
Law Quarterly Review,
volume 2, pages 357-362.
For an enumeration of the various Maritime codes with their
dates,
See
Benedict's Am. Admiralty,
pages 91-97, and
Davis' Outlines of International Law,
pages 5, 6, &c.
----------ADMIRALTY LAW: End----------
----------COMMON LAW: Start----------
Common Law. [Including legislation in modification of It.]
COMMON LAW: A. D. 449-1066.
Trial by Jury unknown to Anglo-Saxons.
"It may be confidently asserted that trial by jury was unknown
to our Anglo-Saxon ancestors; and the idea of its existence in
their legal system has arisen from a want of attention to the
radical distinction between the members or judges composing a
court, and a body of men apart from that court, but summoned
to attend it in order to determine conclusively the facts of
the case in dispute. This is the principle on which is founded
the intervention of a jury; and no trace whatever can be found
of such an institution in Anglo-Saxon times."
W. Forsyth,
Trial by Jury,
page 45.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 630.
The first Written Body of English Law.
"The first written body of English Law is said to have been
promulgated in the Heptarchy by Ethelbert, about the year 630,
and enacted with the consent of the states of his kingdom."
Joseph Parke,
History of Chancery,
page 14.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 871-1066.
The King's Peace.
1. The technical use of "the king's peace" is, I suspect,
connected with the very ancient rule that a breach of the
peace in a house must be atoned for in proportion to the
householder's rank. If it was in the king's dwelling, the
offender's life was in the king's hand. This peculiar sanctity
of the king's house was gradually extended to all persons who
were about his business, or specially under his protection;
but when the Crown undertook to keep the peace everywhere, the
king's peace became coincident with the general peace of the
kingdom, and his especial protection was deemed to be extended
to all peaceable subjects. In substance, the term marks the
establishment of the conception of public justice, exercised
on behalf of the whole commonwealth, as something apart from
and above the right of private vengeance,—a right which the
party offended might pursue or not, or accept composition for,
as he thought fit. The private blood feud, it is true,
formally and finally disappeared from English jurisprudence
only in the present century; but in its legalized historical
shape of the wager of battle it was not a native English
institution.
Sir Frederick Pollock,
Essays in Jurisprudence and Ethics,
page 205.
See, also, KING'S PEACE.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1066.
Inquisition, parent of Modern Jury.
"When the Normans came into England they brought with them,
not only a far more vigorous and searching kingly power than
had been known there, but also a certain product of the
exercise of this power by the Frankish kings and the Norman
dukes; namely, the use of the inquisition in public
administration, i. e., the practice of ascertaining facts by
summoning together by public authority a number of people most
likely, as being neighbors, to know and tell the truth, and
calling for their answer under oath. This was the parent of
the modern jury. …
{1957}
With the Normans came also another novelty, the judicial
duel—one of the chief methods for determining controversies
in the royal courts; and it was largely the cost, danger, and
unpopularity of the last of these institutions which fed the
wonderful growth of the other."
J. B. Thayer,
The Older Modes of Trial
(Harvard Law Review, volume 5, page 45).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1066-1154.
Trial by Jury unknown to Anglo-Normans.
"The same remark which has already been made, with reference
to the absence of all mention of the form of jury trial in the
Anglo-Saxon Laws, applies equally to the first hundred years
after the Conquest. It is incredible that so important a
feature of our jurisprudence, if it had been known, would not
have been alluded to in the various compilations of law which
were made in the reigns of the early Norman kings. …
Although the form of the jury did not then exist, the
rudiments of that mode of trial may be distinctly traced, in
the selection from the neighborhood where the dispute arose,
of a certain number of persons, who after being duly sworn
testified to the truth of the facts within their own
knowledge. This is what distinguishes the proceeding from what
took place among the Anglo-Saxons—namely, the choosing a
limited number of probi homines to represent the community,
and give testimony for them."
W. Forsyth,
Trial by Jury,
pages 82-90.
See, also, JURY: TRIAL BY.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1066-1154.
The Curia Regis.
"As a legal tribunal the jurisdiction of the Curia was both
civil and criminal, original and appellate. As a primary court
it heard all causes in which the king's interests were
concerned, as well as all causes between the tenants-in-chief
of the crown, who were too great to submit to the local
tribunals of the shire and the hundred. As an appellate court
it was resorted to in those cases in which the powers of the
local courts had been exhausted or had failed to do justice.
By virtue of special writs, and as a special favor, the king
could at his pleasure call up causes from the local courts to
be heard in his own court according to such new methods as his
advisers might invent. Through the issuance of these special
writs the king became practically the fountain of justice, and
through their agency the new system of royal law, which finds
its source in the person of the king, was brought in to remedy
the defects of the old, unelastic system of customary law
which prevailed in the provincial courts of the people. The
curia followed the person of the king, or the justiciar in the
king's absence."
Hannis Taylor,
Origin and Growth of the English Constitution,
part 1, pages 245-246.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1066-1215.
Purchasing Writs.
"The course of application to the curia regis was of this
nature. The party suing paid, or undertook to pay, to the king
a fine to have justitiam et rectam in his court: and thereupon
he obtained a writ or precept, by means of which he commenced
his suit; and the justices were authorized to hear and
determine his claim."
Reeves' (Finlason's) History English Law,
volume 1, page 267.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1077.
Trial by Battle.
"The earliest reference to the battle, I believe, in any
account of a trial in England, is at the end of the case of
Bishop Wulfstan v. Abbot Walter, in 1077. The controversy was
settled, and we read: 'Thereof there are lawful witnesses …
who said and heard this, ready to prove it by oath and
battle.' This is an allusion to a common practice in the
Middle Ages, that of challenging an adversary's witness, or
perhaps to one method of disposing of cases where witnesses
were allowed on opposite sides and contradicted each other.
… Thus, as among nations still, so then in the popular
courts and between contending private parties, the battle was
often the ultima ratio, in cases where their rude and
unrational methods of trial yielded no results. It was mainly
in order to displace this dangerous … mode of proof that the
recognitions—that is to say, the first organized form of the
jury—were introduced. These were regarded as a special boon
to the poor man, who was oppressed in many ways by the duel.
It was by enactment of Henry II. that this reform was brought
about, first in his Norman dominions (in 1150-52), before
reaching the English throne, and afterwards in England,
sometime after he became king, in 1154."
J. B. Thayer,
The Older Modes of Trial
(Harvard Law Review, volume 5, pages 66-67).
See, also: WAGER OF BATTLE.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1100 (circa).
Origin of Statutes of Limitation.
"Our ancestors, instead of fixing a given number of years as
the period within which legal proceedings to recover real
property must be resorted to, had recourse to the singular
expedient of making the period of limitation run from
particular events or dates. From the time of Henry I. to that
of Henry III., on a writ of right, the time within which a
descent must be shown was the time of King Henry I. (Co. Litt.
114b). In the twentieth year of Henry III., by the Statute of
Merton (c. 8) the date was altered to the time of Henry II.
Writs of 'mort d'ancestor' were limited to the time of the
last return of King John into England; writs of novel
disseisin to the time of the king's first crossing the sea
into Gascony. In the previous reign, according to Glanville
(lib. 13, c. 33), the disseisin must have been since the last
voyage of King Henry II. into Normandy. So that the time
necessary to bar a claim varied materially at different
epochs. Thus matters remained until the 3 Edw. I. (Stat. West.
1, c. 39), when, as all lawyers are aware, the time within
which a writ of right might be brought was limited to cases in
which the seisin of the ancestor was since the time of King
Richard I., which was construed to mean the beginning of that
king's reign (2 Inst. 238), a period of not less than
eighty-six years. The legislature having thus adopted the
reign of Richard I. as the date from which the limitation in a
real action was to run, the courts of law adopted it as the
period to which, in all matters of prescription or custom,
legal memory, which till then had been confined to the time to
which living memory could go back, should thenceforth be
required to extend. Thus the law remained for two centuries
and a half, by which time the limitation imposed in respect of
actions to recover real property having long become
inoperative to bar claims which had their origin posterior to
the time of Richard I., and having therefore ceased
practically to afford any protection against antiquated
claims, the legislature, in 32d of Henry VIII. (c. 2), again
interfered, and on this occasion, instead of dating the period
of limitation from some particular event or date, took the
wiser course of prescribing a fixed number of years as the
limit within which a suit should be entertained. …
{1958}
It was of course impossible that as time went on the adoption
of a fixed epoch, as the time from which legal memory was to
run, should not be attended by grievous inconvenience and
hardship. Possession, however long, enjoyment, however
interrupted, afforded no protection against stale and obsolete
claims, or the assertion of long abandoned rights. And as
parliament failed to intervene to amend the law, the judges
set their ingenuity to work, by fictions and presumptions, to
atone for the supineness of the legislature. … They first
laid down the somewhat startling rule that from the usage of a
lifetime the presumption arose that a similar usage had
existed from a remote antiquity. Next, as it could not but
happen that, in the case of many private rights, especially in
that of easements, which had a more recent origin, such a
presumption was impossible, judicial astuteness to support
possession and enjoyment, which the law ought to have invested
with the character of rights, had recourse to the questionable
theory of lost grants. Juries were first told that from user,
during living memory, or even during twenty years, they might
presume a lost grant or deed; next they were recommended to
make such presumption; and lastly, as the final consummation
of judicial legislation, it was held that a jury should be
told, not only that they might, but also that they were bound
to presume the existence of such a lost grant, although
neither judge nor jury, nor anyone else, had the shadow of a
belief that any such instrument had ever really existed. …
When the doctrine of presumptions had proceeded far towards
its development, the legislature at length interfered, and in
respect of real property and of certain specified easements,
fixed certain periods of possession or enjoyment as
establishing presumptive rights."
C. J. Cockburn,
in Bryant v. Foot,
L. R. 2 Q. B., 161;
s. c. (Thayer's Cases on Evidence, 94).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1110 (circa).
The King's Peace superior to the Peace of the Subject.
"We find in the so-called laws of Henry I, that wherever men
meet for drinking, selling, or like occasions, the peace of
God and of the lord of the house is to be declared between
them. The amount payable to the host is only one shilling, the
king taking twelve, and the injured party, in case of insult,
six. Thus the king is already concerned, and more concerned
than anyone else; but the private right of the householder is
distinctly though not largely acknowledged. We have the same
feeling well marked in our modern law by the adage that every
man's house is his castle, and the rule that forcible entry
may not be made for the execution of ordinary civil process
against the occupier: though for contempt of Court arising in
a civil cause, it may, as not long ago the Sheriff of Kent had
to learn in a sufficiently curious form. The theoretical
stringency of our law of trespass goes back, probably, to the
same origin. And in a quite recent American textbook we read,
on the authority of several modern cases in various States of
the Union, that 'a man assaulted in his dwelling is not
obliged to retreat, but may defend his possession to the last
extremity.'"
F. Pollock,
The King's Peace
(Law Quarterly Review, volume 1, pages 40-41).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1135.
Abeyance of the King's Peace.
"The King's Peace is proclaimed in general terms at his
accession. But, though generalized in its application, it
still was subject to a strange and inconvenient limit in time.
The fiction that the king is everywhere present, though not
formulated, was tacitly adopted; the protection once confined
to his household was extended to the whole kingdom. The
fiction that the king never dies was yet to come. It was not
the peace of the Crown, an authority having continuous and
perpetual succession, that was proclaimed, but the peace of
William or Henry. When William or Henry died, all authorities
derived from him were determined or suspended; and among other
consequences, his peace died with him. What this abeyance of
the King's Peace practically meant is best told in the words
of the Chronicle, which says upon the death of Henry I. (anno
1135): 'Then there was tribulation soon in the land, for every
man that could forthwith robbed another.' Order was taken in
this matter (as our English fashion is) only when the
inconvenience became flagrant in a particular case. At the
time of Henry III.'s death his son Edward was in Palestine. It
was intolerable that there should be no way of enforcing the
King's Peace till the king had come back to be crowned; and
the great men of the realm, by a wise audacity, took upon them
to issue a proclamation of the peace in the new king's name
forthwith. This good precedent being once made, the doctrine
of the King's Peace being in suspense was never afterwards
heard of."
F. Pollock,
The King's Peace
(Law Quarterly Review, volume 1, pages 48-49).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1154-1189.
Origin of Unanimity of Jury.
"The origin of the rule as to unanimity may, I think, be
explained as follows: In the assise as instituted in the reign
of Henry II. it was necessary that twelve jurors should agree
in order to determine the question of disseisin; but this
unanimity was not then secured by any process which tended to
make the agreement compulsory. The mode adopted was called,
indeed, an afforcement of the jury; but this term did not
imply that any violence was done to the conscientious opinions
of the minority. It merely meant that a sufficient number were
to be added to the panel until twelve were at last found to
agree in the same conclusion; and this became the verdict of
the assise. … The civil law required two witnesses at least,
and in some cases a greater number, to establish a fact in
dispute; as, for instance, where a debt was secured by a
written instrument, five witnesses were necessary to prove
payment. These would have been called by our ancestors a
jurata of five. At the present day, with us no will is valid
which is not attested by at least two witnesses. In all
countries the policy of the law determines what it will accept
as the minimum of proof. Bearing then in mind that the jury
system was in its inception nothing but the testimony of
witnesses informing the court of facts supposed to lie within
their own knowledge, we see at once that to require that
twelve men should be unanimous was simply to fix the amount of
evidence which the law deemed to be conclusive of a matter in
dispute."
W. Forsyth,
History of Trial by Jury,
chapter 11, section 1.
{1959}
A. D. 1154-1189.
Reign of Law initiated.
"The reign of Henry II. initiates the rule of law. The
administrative machinery, which had been regulated by routine
under Henry I., is now made a part of the constitution,
enunciated in laws, and perfected by a steady series of
reforms: The mind of Henry II. was that of a lawyer and man of
business. He set to work from the very beginning of the reign
to place order on a permanent basis, and, recurring to the men
and measures of his grandfather, to complete an organization
which should make a return to feudalism impossible."
W. Stubbs,
Select Charters of English Constitutional History,
page 21.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1164-1176.
Trial by Assize.
"The first mention of the trial by assise in our existing
statutes occurs in the Constitutions of Clarendon, A. D. 1164
[see ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170], where it was provided that if
any dispute arose between a layman and a clerk as to whether a
particular tenement was the property of the Church or belonged
to a lay fief, this was to be determined before the chief
justiciary of the kingdom, by the verdict of twelve lawful
men. … This was followed by the Statute of Northampton, A.
D. 1176, which directs the justices, in case a lord should
refuse to give to the heir the seisin of his deceased
ancestor, 'to cause a recognition to be made by means of
twelve lawful men as to what seisin the deceased had on the
day of his death;' and also orders them to inquire in the same
manner in cases of novel disseisin."
W. Forsyth,
Trial by Jury,
chapter 6, section 3.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1165 (circa).
Justice bought and sold.
"The king's justice was one great source of his revenue, and
he sold it very dear. Observe that this buying and selling was
not in itself corruption, though it is hard to believe that
corruption did not get mixed up with it. Suitors paid heavily
not to have causes decided in their favour in the king's
court, but to have them heard there at all. The king's justice
was not a matter of right, but of exceptional favour; and this
was especially the case when he undertook, as he sometimes
did, to review and overrule the actual decisions of local
courts, or even reverse, on better information, his own
previous commands. And not only was the king's writ sold, but
it was sold at arbitrary and varying prices, the only
explanation of which appears to be that in every case the
king's officers took as much as they could get. Now we are in
a position to understand that famous clause of the Great
Charter: 'To no man will we sell, nor to none deny or delay,
right or justice.' The Great Charter comes about half a
century after the time of which we have been speaking; so in
that time, you see, the great advance had been made of
regarding the king's justice as a matter not of favour but of
right. And besides this clause there is another which provides
for the regular sending of the king's judges into the
counties. Thus we may date from Magna Carta the regular
administration of a uniform system of law throughout England.
What is more, we may almost say that Magna Carta gave England
a capital. For the king's court had till then no fixed seat;
it would be now at Oxford, now at Westminster, now at
Winchester, sometimes at places which by this time are quite
obscure. But the Charter provided that causes between subject
and subject which had to be tried by the king's judges should
be tried not where the king's court happened to be, but in
some certain place; and so the principal seat of the courts of
justice, and ultimately the political capital of the realm,
became established at Westminster."
Sir F. Pollock,
Essays in Jurisprudence and Ethics,
page 209.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1166.
Assize of Clarendon.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1176.
Justices in Eyre.
"It has been generally supposed that justices in Eyre
(justitiarii itinerantes) were first established in 1176, by
Henry II., for we find it recorded that in that year, in a
great counsel held at Northampton, the king divided the realm
into six parts, and appointed three traveling justices to go
each circuit, so that the number was eighteen in all. … But
although the formal division of the kingdom into separate
circuits may have been first made by Henry II., yet there is
no doubt that single justiciars were appointed by William I.,
a few years after the Conquest, who visited the different
shires to administer justice in the king's name, and thus
represented the curia regis as distinct from the hundred and
county courts."
W. Forsyth,
Trial by Jury,
pages 81-82.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1189.
Legal Memory.
Its effect.
"No doubt usage for the last fifty or sixty years would be
some evidence of usage 700 years ago, but if the question is
to be considered as an ordinary question of fact, I certainly
for one would very seldom find a verdict in support of the
right as in fact so ancient. I can hardly believe, for
instance, that the same fees in courts of justice which were
till recently received by the officers as ancient fees
attached to their ancient offices were in fact received 700
years ago; or that the city of London took before the time of
Richard I. the same payments for measuring corn and coals and
oysters that they do now. I have no doubt the city of Bristol
did levy dues in the Avon before the time of legal memory, and
that the mayor, as head of that corporation, got some fees at
that time; but I can hardly bring myself to believe that the
mayor of Bristol at that time received 5s. a year from every
ship above sixty tons burthen which entered the Avon; yet the
claim of the city of Bristol to their ancient mayor's dues, of
which this is one, was established before Lord Tenterden, in
1828. I think the only way in which verdicts in support of
such claims, and there are many such, could have properly been
found, is by supposing that the jury were advised that, in
favor of the long continued user, a presumption arose that it
was legal, on which they ought to find that the user was
immemorial, if that was necessary to legalize it, unless the
contrary was proved; that presumption not being one purely of
fact, and to be acted on only when the jury really entertained
the opinion that in fact the legal origin existed. This was
stated by Parke B., on the first trial of Jenkins v. Harvey, 1
C. M. & R. 894, as being his practice, and what he considered
the correct mode of leaving the question to the jury; and that
was the view of the majority of the judges in the Court of
Exchequer Chamber in Shephard v. Payne, 16 C. B. (N. S.) 132;
33 L. J. (C. P.) 158. This is by no means a modern doctrine;
it is as ancient as the time of Littleton, who, in his
Tenures, § 170, says that all are agreed that usage since the
time of Richard I. is a title; some, he says, have thought it
the only title of prescription, but that others have said
'that there is also another title of prescription that was at
the common law before any statute of limitation of writs, &c.,
and that it was where a custom or usage or other thing hath
been used for time whereof mind of man runneth not to the
contrary.
{1960}
And they have said that this is proved by the pleading where a
man will plead a title of prescription of custom. He shall say
that such a custom hath been used from time whereof the memory
of men runneth not to the contrary, that is as much as to say,
when such a matter is pleaded, that no man then alive hath
heard any proof of the contrary, nor hath no knowledge to the
contrary; and insomuch that such title of prescription was at
the common law, and not put out by any statute, ergo, it
abideth as it was at the common law; and the rather that the
said limitation of a writ of right is of so long time past.
'Ideo quaere de hoc.' It is practically the same thing whether
we say that usage as far back as proof extends is a title,
though it does not go so far back as the year 1189; or that
such usage is to be taken in the absence of proof to the
contrary to establish that the usage began before that year;
and certainly the lapse of 400 years since Littleton wrote has
added force to the remark, 'the rather that the limitation of
a writ of right is of so long time past.' But either way,
proof that the origin of the usage was since that date, puts
an end to the title by prescription; and the question comes
round to be whether the amount of the fee, viz. 13s., is by
itself sufficient proof that it must have originated since."
J. Blackburn,
in Bryant v. Foot, L. R. 2 Q. B., 161,. s. c.
(Thayer's Cases on Evidence, page 88).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1194.
English Law Repositories.
"The extant English judicial records do not begin until 1194
(Mich. 6 Rich. I.). We have a series of such records from 1384
(6 Rich. II.). The first law treatise by Glanvill was not
written before 1187. The law reports begin in 1292. The
knowledge of the laws of England prior to the twelfth century
is in many points obscure and uncertain. From that time,
however, the growth and development of these laws can be
traced in the parliamentary and official records, treatises,
and law reports."
John F. Dillon,
The Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America,
pages 28-29.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1199.
Earliest instance of Action for Trespass.
"A case of the year 1199 (2 Rot. Cur. Reg. 34) seems to be the
earliest reported instance of an action of trespass in the
royal courts. Only a few cases are recorded during the next
fifty years. But about 1250 the action came suddenly into
great popularity. In the 'Abbreviatio Placitorum,' twenty-five
cases are given of the single year 1252-1253. We may infer
that the writ, which had before been granted as a special
favor, became at that time a writ of course. In Britton (f.
49), pleaders are advised to sue in trespass rather than by
appeal, in order to avoid 'la perilouse aventure de batayles.'
Trespass in the popular courts of the hundred and county was
doubtless of far greater antiquity than the same action in the
Curia Regis. Several cases of the reign of Henry I, are
collected in Bigelow, Placita Anglo-Normannica, 89, 98, 102,
127."
J. B. Ames,
The Disseisin of Chattels
(Harvard Law Review, volume 3, page 29, note).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1208.
Evidence: Attesting Witnesses.
"From the beginning of our records, we find cases, in a
dispute over the genuineness of a deed, where the jury are
combined with the witnesses to the deed. This goes back to the
Franks; and their custom of requiring the witness to a
document to defend it by battle also crossed the channel, and
is found in Glanville (lib. X., c. 12). … In these cases the
jury and the witnesses named in the deed were summoned
together, and all went out and conferred privately as if
composing one body; the witnesses did not regularly testify in
open court. Cases of this kind are found very early, e. g. in
1208-1209 (Pl. Ab. 63, col. 1, Berk.). … In the earlier
cases these witnesses appear, sometimes, to have been
conceived of as a constituent part of the jury; it was a
combination of business-witnesses and community-witnesses who
tried the case,—the former supplying to the others their
more exact information, just as the hundreders, or those from
another county, did in the cases before noticed. But in time
the jury and the witnesses came to be sharply discriminated.
Two or three cases in the reign of Edward III. show this. In
1337, 1338 and 1349, we are told that they are charged
differently; the charge to the jury is to tell the truth (a
lour ascient) to the best of their knowledge, while that to
the witnesses is to tell the truth and loyally inform the
inquest, without saying anything about their knowledge (sans
lour scient); 'for the witnesses,' says Thorpe, C. J., in
1349, 'should say nothing but what they know as certain, i.
e., what they see and hear.' … By the Statute of York (12
Edw. II. c. 2), in 1318, it was provided that while process
should still issue to the witnesses as before, yet the taking
of the inquest should not be delayed by their absence. In this
shape the matter ran on for a century or two. By 1472 (Y. B.
12 Edw. IV. 4, 9), we find a change. It is said, with the
assent of all the judges, that process for the witnesses will
not issue unless asked for. As late, certainly, as 1489 (Y. B.
5 H. VII. 8), we find witnesses to deeds still summoned with
the jury. I know of no later case. In 1549-1550 Brooke,
afterwards Chief Justice of the Common Bench, argues as if
this practice was still known: 'When the witnesses … are
joined to the inquest,' etc.; and I do not observe anything in
his Abridgment, published in 1568, ten years after his death,
to indicate that it was not a recognized part of the law
during all his time. It may, however, well have been long
obsolescent. Coke (Inst. 6 b.) says of it, early in the
seventeenth century, 'and such process against witnesses is
vanished;' but when or how he does not say. We may reasonably
surmise, if it did not become infrequent as the practice grew,
in the fifteenth century, of calling witnesses to testify to
the jury in open court, that, at any rate, it must have soon
disappeared when that practice came to be attended with the
right, recognized, if not first granted, in the statute of
1562-1563 (5 Eliz. c. 9, s. 6), to have legal process against
all sorts of witnesses."
James B. Thayer,
in Harvard Law Review,
volume 5, pages 302-5,
also in Sel. Cas. Ev.
pages 771-773.
"After the period reached in the passage above quoted, the old
strictness as to the summoning of attesting witnesses still
continued under the new system. As the history of the matter
was forgotten, new reasons were invented, and the rule was
extended to all sorts of writings."
J. B. Thayer,
Select Cases on Evidence,
page 773.
{1961}
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1215 (ante).
Courts following the King.
"Another point which ought not to be forgotten in relation to
the King's Court is its migratory character. The early kings
of England were the greatest landowners in the country, and
besides their landed estates they had rights over nearly every
important town in England, which could be exercised only on
the spot. They were continually travelling about from place to
place, either to consume in kind part of their revenues, or to
hunt or to fight. Wherever they went the great officers of
their court, and in particular the chancellor with his clerks,
and the various justices had to follow them. The pleas, so the
phrase went, 'followed the person of the king,' and the
machinery of justice went with them."
Sir J. F. Stephen,
History of the Criminal Law of England,
volume 1, page 87.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1215.
Magna Charta.
"With regard to the administration of justice, besides
prohibiting all denials or delays of it, it fixed the court of
Common Pleas at Westminster, that the suitors might no longer
be harassed with following the King's person in all his
progresses; and at the same time brought the trial of issues
borne to the very doors of the freeholders by directing
assizes to be taken in the proper counties, and establishing
annual circuits. It also corrected some abuses then incident
to the trials by wager of law and of battle; directing the
regular awarding of inquest for life or member; prohibited the
King's inferior ministers from holding pleas of the crown, or
trying any criminal charge, whereby many forfeitures might
otherwise have unjustly accrued to the exchequer: and
regulated the time and place of holding the inferior tribunals
of justice, the county court, sheriff's tourn, and court leet.
… And, lastly (which alone would have merited the title that
it bears, of the great charter,) it protected every individual
of the nation in the free enjoyment of his life, his liberty
and his property, unless declared to be forfeited by the
judgment of his peers, or the law of the land."
Owen Flintoff,
Laws of England,
page 184.
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1215.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1216.
Distinction between Common and Statute Law now begins.
"The Chancellors, during this reign [John 1199-1216], did
nothing to be entitled to the gratitude of posterity, and were
not unworthy of the master whom they served. The guardians of
law were the feudal barons, assisted by some enlightened
churchmen, and by their efforts the doctrine of resistance to
lawless tyranny was fully established in England, and the
rights of all classes of the people were defined and
consolidated. We here reach a remarkable era in our
constitutional history: National councils had met from the
most remote times; but to the end of this reign their acts not
being preserved are supposed to form a part of the lex non
scripta, or common law. Now begins the distinction between
common and statute law, and henceforth we can distinctly trace
the changes which our juridical system has undergone. These
changes were generally introduced by the Chancellor for the
time being."
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Chancellors,
volume 1, page 115.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1216-1272.
Henry de Bracton.
"It is curious that, in the most disturbed period of this
turbulent reign, when ignorance seemed to be thickening and
the human intellect to decline, there was written and given to
the world the best treatise upon law of which England could
boast, till the publication of Blackstone's Commentaries, in
the middle of the eighteenth century. It would have been very
gratifying to me if this work could have been ascribed with
certainty to any of the Chancellors whose lives have been
noticed. The author, usually styled Henry de Bracton, has gone
by the name of Brycton, Britton, Briton, Breton, and Brets;
and some have doubted whether all these names are not
imaginary. From the elegance of his style, and the familiar
knowledge he displays of the Roman law, I cannot doubt that he
was an ecclesiastic who had addicted himself to the study of
jurisprudence; and as he was likely to gain advancement from
his extraordinary proficiency, he may have been one of those
whom I have commemorated, although I must confess that he
rather speaks the language likely to come from a disappointed
practitioner rather than of a Chancellor who had been himself
in the habit of making Judges. For comprehensiveness, for
lucid arrangement, for logical precision, this author was
unrivalled during many ages. Littleton's work on Tenures,
which illustrated the reign of Edward IV., approaches Bracton;
but how barbarous are, in comparison, the commentaries of Lord
Coke, and the law treatises of Hale and of Hawkins!"
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Chancellors,
volume 1, page 139.
For opposite view
See 9 American Bar Association Report, p. 193.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1217.
Dower.
"The additional provision made in the edition of 1217 to the
provisions of the earlier issues of the Charter in respect of
widow's rights fixed the law of dower on the basis on which it
still rests. The general rule of law still is that the widow
is entitled for her life to a third part of the lands of which
her husband was seized for an estate of inheritance at any
time during the marriage. At the present day there are means
provided which are almost universally adopted, of barring or
defeating the widow's claim. The general rule of law, however,
remains the same. The history of the law of dower deserves a
short notice, which may conveniently find a place here. It
seems to be in outline as follows. Tacitus noticed the
contrast of Teutonic custom and Roman law, in that it was not
the wife who conferred a dowry on the husband, but the husband
on the wife. By early Teutonic custom, besides the
bride-price, or price paid by the intending husband to the
family of the bride, it seems to have been usual for the
husband to make gifts of lands or chattels to the bride
herself. These appear to have taken two forms. In some cases
the husband or his father executed before marriage an
instrument called 'libellum dotis,' specifying the nature and
extent of the property to be given to the wife. … Another
and apparently among the Anglo-Saxons a commoner form of dower
is the 'morning gift.' This was the gift which on the morning
following the wedding the husband gave to the wife, and might
consist either of land or chattels. … By the law as stated
by Glanvil the man was bound to endow the woman 'tempore
desponsationis ad ostium ecclesiae.' The dower might be
specified or not. If not specified it was the third part of
the freehold which the husband possessed at the time of
betrothal. If more than a third part was named, the dower was
after the husband's death cut down to a third. A gift of less
would however be a satisfaction of dower. It was sometimes
permitted to increase the dower when the freehold available at
the time of betrothal was small, by giving the wife a third
part or less of subsequent acquisitions. This however must
have been expressly granted at the time of betrothal.
{1962}
A woman could never claim more than had been granted 'ad
ostium ecclesiae.' Dower too might be granted to a woman out
of chattels personal, and in this case she would be entitled
to a third part. In process of time however, this species of
dower ceased to be regarded as legal, and was expressly denied
to be law in the time of Henry IV. A trace of it still remains
in the expression in the marriage service, 'with all my
worldly goods I thee endow.'"
Kenelm E. Digby,
History of the Law of Real Property,
pages 126-128 (4th edition).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1258.
Provisions of Oxford; no Writs except de Cursu.
"The writ had originally no connection whatever with the
relief sought, it had been a general direction to do right to
the plaintiff, or as the case might be, but, long before the
time now referred to, this had been changed. … It appears
that even after the writ obtained by the plaintiff had come to
be connected with the remedy sought for, … a writ to suit
each case was framed and issued, but the Provisions of Oxford
(1258) expressly forbade the Chancellor to frame new writs
without the consent of the King and his Council. It followed
that there were certain writs, each applicable to a particular
state of circumstances and leading to a particular judgment,
which could be purchased by an intending plaintiff. These
writs were described as writs 'de cursu,' and additions to
their number were made from time to time by direction of the
King, of his Council or of Parliament."
D. M. Kerly,
History of Equity,
page 9.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1258.
Sale of Judicial Offices.
"The Norman Kings, who were ingenious adepts in realizing
profit in every opportunity, commenced the sale of Judicial
Offices. The Plantagenets followed their example. In Madox,
chap. II., and in the 'Cottoni Posthuma, may be found
innumerable instances of the purchase of the Chancellorship,
and accurate details of the amount of the consideration
monies. … What was bought must, of course, be sold, and
justice became henceforth a marketable commodity. … The
Courts of Law became a huckster's shop; every sort of produce,
in the absence of money, was bartered for 'justice.'"
J. Parke,
History of English Chancery,
page 23.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1265.
Disappearance of the Office of Chief Justiciary.
"Towards the end of this reign [Henry III.] the office of
Chief Justiciary, which had often been found so dangerous to
the Crown, fell into disuse. Hugh le Despenser, in the 49th of
Henry III., was the last who bore the title. The hearing of
common actions being fixed at Westminster by Magna Charta, the
Aula Regia was gradually subdivided and certain Judges were
assigned to hear criminal cases before the King himself,
wheresoever he might be, in England. These formed the Court of
King's Bench. They were called 'Justitiarii ad placita coram
Rege,' and the one who was to preside 'Capitalis
Justiciarius.' He was inferior in rank to the Chancellor, and
had a salary of only one hundred marks a year, while the
Chancellor had generally 500. Henceforth the Chancellor, in
rank, power, and emolument, was the first magistrate under the
Crown, and looked up to as the great head of the profession of
the law."
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Chancellors,
volume 1, pages 139-140.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1275.
Statute of Westminster the First;
Improvement of the Law.
"He [Robert Burnel] presided at the Parliament which met in
May, 1275, and passed the 'Statute of Westminster the First,'
deserving the name of a Code rather than an Act of Parliament.
From this chiefly, Edward I. has obtained the name of 'the
English Justinian'—absurdly enough, as the Roman Emperor
merely caused a compilation to be made of existing
laws,—whereas the object now was to correct abuses, to supply
defects, and to remodel the administration of justice. Edward
deserves infinite praise for the sanction he gave to the
undertaking; and from the observations he had made in France,
Sicily, and the East, he may, like Napoleon, have been
personally useful in the consultations for the formation of
the new Code,—but the execution of the plan must have been
left to others professionally skilled in jurisprudence, and
the chief merit of it may safely be ascribed to Lord
Chancellor Burnel, who brought it forward in Parliament. The
statute is methodically divided into fifty-one chapters. …
It provides for freedom of popular elections, then a mutter of
much moment, as sheriffs, coroners, and conservators of the
peace were still chosen by the free holders in the county
court, and attempts had been made unduly to influence the
elections of knights of the shire, almost from the time when
the order was instituted. … It amends the criminal law,
putting the crime of rape on the footing to which it has been
lately restored, as a most grievous but not a capital offence.
It embraces the subject of 'Procedure' both in civil and
criminal matters, introducing many regulations with a view to
render it cheaper, more simple, and more expeditious. … As
long as Burnel continued in office the improvement of the law
rapidly advanced,—there having been passed in the sixth year
of the King's reign the 'Statute of Gloucester;' in the
seventh year of the King's reign the 'Statute of Mortmain;' in
the thirteenth year of the King's reign the 'Statute of
Westminster the Second,' the 'Statute of Winchester,' and the
'Statute of Circumspecte agatis;' and in the eighteenth year
of the King's reign the 'Statute of Quo Warranto,' and the
'Statute of Quia Emptores.' With the exception of the
establishment of estates tail, which proved such an obstacle
to the alienation of land till defeated by the fiction of
Fines and Common Recoveries,—these laws were in a spirit of
enlightened legislation, and admirably accommodated the law to
the changed circumstances of the social system,—which ought
to be the object of every wise legislation."
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Chancellors,
volume 1, pages 143-146.
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1275-1295, and 1279.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1278.
Foundation of Costs at Common Law.
"The Statute of Gloucester, 6 Edw. I c. i, is the foundation
of the common law jurisdiction as to costs, and by that
statute it was enacted that in any action where the plaintiff
recovered damages, he should also recover costs. … By the
Judicature Act, 1875, O. L. V., the Legislature gave a direct
authority to all the judges of the Courts constituted under
the Judicature Act, and vested in them a discretion which was
to guide and determine them, according to the circumstances of
each case, in the disposition of costs."
Sydney Hastings,
Treatise on Torts,
page 379.
{1963}
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1285.
Statute of Westminster II.;
Writs in Consimili Casu.
"The inadequacy of the common form writs to meet every case
was, to some extent, remedied by the 24th Chapter of the
Statute of Westminster II., which, after providing for one or
two particular cases to meet which no writ existed, provides
further that 'whensoever from henceforth it shall fortune in
Chancery that in one case a writ is found, and, in like case
falling under like law is found none, the clerks of the
Chancery shall agree in making a writ or shall adjourn the
Plaintiffs until the next Parliament, and the cases shall be
written in which they cannot agree, and be referred until the
next Parliament; and, by consent of the men learned in the Law
a writ shall be made, that it may not happen, that the King's
Court should fail in ministering justice unto Complainants.'
… The words of the statute give no power to make a
completely new departure; writs are to be framed to fit cases
similar to, but not identical with, cases falling within
existing writs, and the examples given in the statute itself
are cases of extension of remedies against a successor in
title of the raiser of a nuisance, and for the successor in
title of a person who had been disseised of his common.
Moreover the form of the writ was debated upon before, and its
sufficiency determined by the judges, not by its framers, and
they were, as English judges have always been, devoted
adherents to precedent. In the course of centuries, by taking
certain writs as starting points, and accumulating successive
variations upon them, the judges added great areas to our
common law, and many of its most famous branches, assumpsit,
and trover and conversion for instance, were developed in this
way, but the expansion of the Common Law was the work of the
15th and subsequent centuries, when, under the stress of eager
rivalry with the growing equitable jurisdiction of the
Chancery, the judges strove, not only by admitting and
developing actions upon the case, but also by the use of
fictitious actions, following the example of the Roman
Praetor, to supply the deficiencies of their system."
D. M. Kerly,
History of Equity,
pages 10-11.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1285.
Writ of Elegit.
The Writ of Elegit "is a judicial writ given by the statute
Westm. 2, 13 Edw. I., c. 18, either upon a judgment for a

debt, or damages; or upon the forfeiture of a recognizance
taken in the king's court. By the common law a man could only
have satisfaction of goods, chattels, and the present profits
of lands, by the … writs of 'fieri facias,' or 'levari
facias;' but not the possession of the lands themselves; which
was a natural consequence of the feudal principles, which
prohibited the alienation, and of course the encumbering of
the fief with the debts of the owner. … The statute
therefore granted this writ (called an 'elegit,' because it is
in the choice or the election of the plaintiff whether he will
sue out this writ or one of the former), by which the
defendant's goods and chattels are not sold, but only
appraised; and all of them (except oxen and beasts of the
plough) are delivered to the plaintiff, at such reasonable
appraisement and price, in part of satisfaction of his debt.
If the goods are not sufficient, then the moiety or one-half
of his freehold lands, which he had at the time of the
judgment given, whether held in his own name, or by any other
in trust for him, are also to be delivered to the plaintiff;
to hold, till out of the rents and profits thereof the debt be
levied, or till the defendant's interest be expired; as till
the death of the defendant, if he be tenant for life or in
tail."
Wm. Blackstone,
Commentaries,
book 3, chapter 27.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1290.
Progress of the Common Law Right of Alienation.
"The statute of Quia Emptores, 18 Edw. I., finally and
permanently established the free right of alienation by the
sub-vassal, without the lord's consent; … and it declared,
that the grantee should not hold the land of his immediate
feoffor, but of the chief lord of the fee, of whom the grantor
himself held it. … The power of involuntary alienation, by
rendering the land answerable by attachment for debt, was
created by the statute of Westm. 2, 13 Edw. I, c. 18, which
granted the elegit; and by the statutes merchant or staple, of
13 Edw. I., and 27 Edw. III., which gave the extent. These
provisions were called for by the growing commercial spirit of
the nation. To these we may add the statute of 1 Edw. III.,
taking away the forfeiture or alienation by the king's tenants
in capite, and substituting a reasonable fine in its place;
… and this gives us a condensed view of the progress of the
common law right of alienation from a state of servitude to
freedom."
J. Kent,
Commentaries,
part 6, lecture 67.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1292.
Fleta.
"Fleta, so called from its composition in the Fleet prison by
one of the justices imprisoned by Edward I., is believed to
have been written about the year 1292, and is nothing but an
abbreviation of Bracton, and the work called 'Britton,' which
was composed between the years 1290 and 1300, is of the same
character, except that it is written in the vernacular
language, French, while Granvil, Bracton and Fleta are written
in Latin."
Thomas J. Semmes,
9 American Bar Association Report,
page 193.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1300 (circa).
The King's Peace a Common Right.
"By the end of the thirteenth century, a time when so much
else of our institutions was newly and strongly fashioned for
larger uses, the King's Peace had fully grown from an
occasional privilege into a common right. Much, however,
remained to be done before the king's subjects had the full
benefit of this. … A beginning of this was made as early as
1195 by the assignment of knights to take an oath of all men
in the kingdom that they would keep the King's Peace to the
best of their power. Like functions were assigned first to the
old conservators of the peace, then to the justices who
superseded them, and to whose office a huge array of powers
and duties of the most miscellaneous kind have been added by
later statutes. … Then the writ 'de securitate pacis' made
it clear beyond cavil that the king's peace was now, by the
common law, the right of every lawful man."
F. Pollock,
The King's Peace,
(Law Quarterly Review,
volume 1, page 49).
A. D. 1307-1509.
The Year Books.
"The oldest reports extant on the English law, are the Year
Books … , written in law French, and extend from the
beginning of the reign of Edward II, to the latter end of the
reign of Henry VIII, a period of about two hundred years. …
The Year Books were very much occupied with discussions
touching the forms of writs, and the pleadings and practice in
real actions, which have gone entirely out of use."
J. Kent,
Commentaries,
part 3, lecture 21.
{1964}
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1316.
Election of Sheriffs abolished.
"Until the time of Edward II. the sheriff was elected by the
inhabitants of the several counties; but a statute of the 9th
year of that reign abolished election, and ever since, with
few exceptions, the sheriff has been appointed, upon
nomination by the king's councillors and the judges of certain
ranks, by the approval of the crown. … The office of sheriff
is still in England one of eminent honor, and is conferred on
the wealthiest and most notable commoners in the counties."
New American Cyclopædia,
volume 14, page 585.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1326-1377.
Jurors cease to be Witnesses.
"The verdict of … the assize was founded on the personal
knowledge of the jurors themselves respecting the matter in
dispute, without hearing the evidence of witnesses in court.
But there was an exception in the case of deeds which came
into controversy, and in which persons had been named as
witnessing the grant or other matter testified by the deed.
… This seems to have paved the way for the important change
whereby the jury ceasing to be witnesses themselves, gave
their verdict upon the evidence brought before them at the
trials. … Since the jurors themselves were originally mere
witnesses, there was no distinction in principle between them
and the attesting witnesses; so that it is by no means
improbable that the latter were at first associated with them
in the discharge of the same function, namely, the delivery of
a verdict, and that gradually, in the course of years, a
separation took place. This separation, at all events, existed
in the reign of Edward III.; for although we find in the Year
Books of that period the expression, 'the witnesses were
joined to the assize,' a clear distinction is,
notwithstanding, drawn between them."
W. Forsyth,
Trial by Jury,
pages 124 and 128.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1362.
Pleading in the English tongue.
Enrollment in Latin.
"The Statute 36 Edward III., c. 15, A. D. 1362, enacted that
in future all pleas should be 'pleaded, shewed, defended,
answered, debated, and judged in the English tongue:' the
lawyers, on the alert, appended a proviso that they should be
'entered and enrolled' in Latin, and the old customary terms
and forms retained."
J. Parke,
History of Chancery,
page 43.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1368.
Jury System in Civil Trials.
"As it was an essential principle of the jury trial from the
earliest times, that the jurors should be summoned from the
hundred where the cause of action arose, the court, in order
to procure their attendance, issued in the first instance a
writ called a venire facias, commanding the sheriff or other
officer to whom it was directed, to have twelve good and
lawful men for the neighborhood in court upon a day therein
specified, to try the issue joined between the parties. And
this was accordingly done, and the sheriff had his jury ready
at the place which the court had appointed for its sitting.
But when the Court of Common Pleas was severed from the Curia
Regis, and became stationary at Westminster (a change which
took place in the reign of King John, and was the subject of
one of the provisions of Magna Charta), it was found to be
very inconvenient to be obliged to take juries there from all
parts of the country. And as justices were already in the
habit of making periodical circuits for the purpose of holding
the assize in pleas of land, it was thought advisable to
substitute them for the full court in banc at Westminster, in
other cases also. The statute 13 Edw. I. c. 30, was therefore
passed, which enacted that these justices should try other
issues: 'wherein small examination was required,' or where
both parties desired it, and return the inquests into the
court above. This led to an alteration in the form of the
venire: and instead of the sheriff being simply ordered to
bring the jurors to the courts at Westminster on a day named,
he was now required to bring them there on a certain day,
'nisi prius,' that is, unless before that day the justices of
assize came into his county, in which case the statute
directed him to return the jury, not to the court, but before
the justices of assize."
W. Forsyth,
History of Trial by Jury,
pages 139-140.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1382.
Peaceable Entry.
"This remedy by entry must be pursued according to statute 5
Rich. II., st. I., c. 8, in a peaceable and easy manner; and
not with force or strong hand. For, if one turns or keeps
another out of possession forcibly, this is an injury of both
a civil and a criminal nature. The civil is remedied by an
immediate restitution; which puts the ancient possessor in
statu quo: the criminal injury, or public wrong, by breach of
the king's peace, is punished by fine to the King."
W. Blackstone,
Commentaries,
book 3, page 179.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1383-1403.
Venue to be laid in proper Counties.
"The statutes 6 Rich. II., c. 2, and 4 Hen. IV., c. 18, having
ordered all writs to be laid in their proper counties, this,
as the judges conceived, empowered them to change the venue,
if required, and not to insist rigidly on abating the writ:
which practice began in the reign of James the First. And this
power is discretionally exercised, so as to prevent, and not
to cause, a defect of justice. … And it will sometimes
remove the venue from the proper jurisdiction, … upon a
suggestion, duly supported, that a fair and impartial trial
cannot be had therein."
W. Blackstone,
Commentaries,
book 3, page 294.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1388.
Prohibition against Citation of Roman Law
in Common-law Tribunals.
"In the reign of Edward III. the exactions of the court of
Rome had become odious to the king and the people. Edward,
supported by his Parliament, resisted the payment of the
tribute which his predecessors from the Conquest downwards,
but more particularly from the time of John, had been
accustomed to pay to the court of Rome; … the name of the
Roman Law, which in the reigns of Henry II. and III., and of
Edward I., had been in considerable favor at court, and even
… with the judges, became the object of aversion. In the
reign of Richard II. the barons protested that they would
never suffer the kingdom to be governed by the Roman law, and
the judges prohibited it from being any longer cited in the
common law tribunals."
G. Spence,
Equity Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery,
volume 1, page 346.
{1965}
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1436.
Act to prevent interference with Common Law Process.
"In 1436, an act was passed with the concurrence of the
Chancellor, to check the wanton filing of bills in Chancery in
disturbance of common law process. The Commons, after reciting
the prevailing grievance, prayed 'that every person from this
time forward vexed in Chancery for matter determinable by the
common law, have action against him that so vexed him, and
recover his damages.' The King answered, 'that no writ of
subpoena be granted hereafter till security be found to
satisfy the party so vexed and grieved for his damages and
expenses, if it so be that the matter may not be made good
which is contained in the bill.'"
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Chancellors,
volume I, page 272.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1450 (circa).
Evidence.
Number of Witnesses.
"It is then abundantly plain that by this time [the middle of
the 15th century] witnesses could testify in open court to the
jury. That this was by no means freely done seems also plain.
Furthermore, it is pretty certain that this feature of a jury
trial, in our day so conspicuous and indispensable, was then
but little considered and of small importance."
J. B. Thayer,
Select Cases on Evidence,
page 1071.
ALSO IN:
J. B. Thayer,
The Jury and its Development
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 5, page 360).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1456.
Demurrers to Evidence.
"Very soon, as it seems, after the general practice began of
allowing witnesses to testify to the jury, an interesting
contrivance for eliminating the jury came into existence, the
demurrer upon evidence. Such demurrers, like others, were
demurrers in law; but they had the effect to withdraw from the
jury all consideration of the facts, and, in their pure form,
to submit to the court two questions, of which only the second
was, in strictness, a question of law: (1) Whether a verdict
for the party who gave the evidence could be given, as a
matter of legitimate inference and interpretation from the
evidence; (2) As a matter of law. Of this expedient, I do not
observe any mention earlier than the year 1456, and it is
interesting to notice that we do not trace the full use of
witnesses to the jury much earlier than this."
J. B. Thayer,
Law and Fact in Jury Trials
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 4, page 162).
ALSO IN:
J. B. Thayer,
Select Cases on Evidence,
page 149.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1470.
Evidence.
Competency of Witnesses.
"Fortescue (De Laud. c. 26), who has the earliest account
(about 1470) of witnesses testifying regularly to the jury,
gives no information as to any ground for challenging them.
But Coke, a century and a third later, makes certain
qualifications of the assertion of the older judges, that
'they had not seen witnesses challenged.' He mentions as
grounds of exclusion, legal infamy, being an 'infidel,' of
non-sane memory, 'not of discretion,' a party interested, 'or
the like.' And he says that 'it hath been resolved by the
justices [in 1612] that a wife cannot be produced either
against or for her husband, quia sunt duae animae in carne
una.' He also points out that 'he that challengeth a right in
the thing in demand cannot be a witness.' Here are the
outlines of the subsequent tests for the competency of
witnesses. They were much refined upon, particularly the
excluding ground of interest; and great inconveniences
resulted. At last in the fourth and fifth decades of the
present century, in England, nearly all objections to
competency were abolished, or turned into matters of
privilege."
J. B. Thayer,
Select Cases on Evidence,
p. 1070.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1473.
Barring Entails.
Taltarum's Case.
"The common-law judges at this time were very bold men, having
of their own authority repealed the statute De Donis, passed
in the reign of Edward I., which authorized the perpetual
entail of land,—by deciding in Taltarum's Case, that the
entail might be barred through a fictitious proceeding in the
Court of Common Pleas, called a 'Common Recovery;'—the
estate being adjudged to a sham claimant,—a sham equivalent
being given to those who ought to succeed to it,—and the
tenant in tail being enabled to dispose of it as he pleases,
in spite of the will of the donor."
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Chancellors,
volume 1, pages 309-310.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1481-1505.
Development of Actions of Assumpsit.
"It is probable that the willingness of equity to give
pecuniary relief upon parol promises hastened the development
of the action of assumpsit. Fairfax, J., in 1481, advised
pleaders to pay more attention to actions on the case, and
thereby diminish the resort to chancery; and Fineux, C. J.,
remarked, in 1505, after that advice had been followed and
sanctioned by the courts, that it was no longer necessary to
sue a subpoena in such cases. Brooke, in his 'Abridgment,'
adds to this remark of Fineux, C. J.: 'But note that he shall
have only damages by this [action on the case], but by
subpoena the chancellor may compel him to execute the estate
or imprison him ut dicitur.'"
J. B. Ames,
Specific Performance of Contracts
(The Green Bag,
volume 1, page 26).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1484.
Statutes to be in English.
"In opening the volumes of our laws, as printed by authority
'from original records and authentic manuscripts,' we are
struck with a change upon the face of these Statutes of
Richard III., which indicates as true a regard for the liberty
of the subjects as the laws themselves. For the first time the
laws to be obeyed by the English people are enacted in the
English tongue."
Charles Knight,
History of England,
volume 2, page 200.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1499 (circa).
Copyright.
"From about the period of the introduction of printing into
this country, that is to say, towards the end of the fifteenth
century, English authors had, in accordance with the opinion
of the best legal authorities, a right to the Copyright in
their works, according to the Common Law of the Realm, or a
right to their 'copy' as it was anciently called, but there is
no direct evidence of the right until 1558. The Charter of the
Stationers' Company, which to this day is charged with the
Registration of Copyright, was granted by Philip and Mary in
1556. The avowed object of this corporation was to prevent the
spread of the Reformation. Then there followed the despotic
jurisdiction of the Star Chamber over the publication of
books, and the Ordinances and the Licensing Act of Charles II.
At the commencement of the 18th century there was no statutory
protection of Copyright. Unrestricted piracy was rife. The
existing remedies of a bill in equity and an action at law
were too cumbrous and expensive to protect the authors' Common
Law rights, and authors petitioned Parliament for speedier and
more effectual remedies. In consequence, the 8 Anne, c. 19,
the first English Statute providing for the protection of
Copyright, was passed in 1710. This Act gave to the author the
sole liberty of publication for 14 years, with a further term
of fourteen years, provided the author was living at the
expiration of the first term, and enacted provisions for the
forfeiture of piratical copies and for the imposition of
penalties in cases of piracy.
{1966}
But in obtaining this Act, the authors placed themselves very
much in the position of the dog in the fable, who dropped the
substance in snatching at the shadow, for, while on the one
hand they obtained the remedial measures they desired, on the
other, the Perpetual Copyright to which they were entitled at
the Common Law was reduced to the fixed maximum term already
mentioned, through the combined operation of the statute and
the judicial decisions to be presently referred to. But
notwithstanding the statute, the Courts continued for some
time to recognise the rights of authors at Common Law, and
numerous injunctions were granted to protect the Copyright in
books, in which the term of protection granted by the statute
of Anne had expired, and which injunctions therefore could
only have been granted on the basis of the Common Law right.
In 1769 judgment was pronounced in the great Copyright case of
Millar v. Taylor. The book in controversy was Thomson's
'Seasons,' in which work the period of Copyright granted by
the statute of Anne had expired, and the question was directly
raised, whether a Perpetual Copyright according to Common Law,
and independent of that statute, remained in the author after
publication. Lord Mansfield, one of the greatest lawyers of
all times, maintained in his judgment that Copyright was
founded on the Common Law, and that it had not been taken away
by the statute of Anne, which was intended merely to give for
a term of years a more complete protection. But, in 1774 this
decision was overruled by the House of Lords in the equally
celebrated pendent case of Donaldson v. Beckett, in which the
Judges consulted were equally divided on the same point, Lord
Mansfield and Sir William Blackstone being amongst those who
were of opinion that the Common Law right had not been taken
away by the statute of Anne. But owing to a point of
etiquette, namely that of being peer as well as one of the
Judges, Lord Mansfield did not express his opinion, and in
consequence, the House of Lords, influenced by a specious
oration from Lord Camden, held (contrary to the opinion of the
above-mentioned illustrious Jurists), that the statute had
taken away all Common Law rights after publication, and hence
that in a published book there was no Copyright except that
given by the statute. This judgment caused great alarm amongst
those who supposed that their Copyright was perpetual. Acts of
Parliament were applied for, and in 1775 the Universities
obtained one protecting their literary property."
T. A. Romer,
Copyright Law Reform
(Law Magazine & Review,
4th ser., volume 12, page 231).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1499.
Action of Ejectment.
"The writ of 'ejectione firmæ' … , out of which the modern
action of ejectment has gradually grown into its present form,
is not of any great antiquity. … The Court of Common Pleas
had exclusive jurisdiction of real actions while ejectment
could be brought in all three of the great common law courts.
… The practitioners in the King's Bench also encouraged
ejectment, for it enabled them to share in the lucrative
practice of the Common Pleas. … In the action of 'ejectione
firmæ,' the plaintiff first only recovered damages, as in any
other action of trespass. … The courts, consequently
following, it is said, in the footsteps of the courts of
equity, … introduced into this action a species of relief
not warranted by the original writ, … viz., a judgment to
recover the term, and a writ of possession thereupon. Possibly
the change was inspired by jealousy of the chancery courts. It
cannot be stated precisely when this change took place. In
1383 it was conceded by the full court that in 'ejectione
firmæ' the plaintiff could no more recover his term than in
trespass he could recover damages for a trespass to be done.
… But in 1468 it was agreed by opposing counsel that the
term could be recovered, as well as damages. The earliest
reported decision to this effect was in 1499, and is referred
to by Mr. Reeves as the most important adjudication rendered
during the reign of Henry VII., for it changed the whole
system of remedies for the trial of controverted titles to
land, and the recovery of real property."
Sedgwick and Wait,
Trial of Title to Land (2nd edition),
sections 12-25.
"Ejectment is the form of action now retained in use in
England under the Statute of 3 and 4 Wm. IV., c. 7, § 36,
which abolished all other forms of real actions except dower.
It is in general use in some form in this country, and by it
the plaintiff recovers, if at all, upon the strength of his
own title, and not upon the weakness of that of the tenant,
since possession is deemed conclusive evidence of title as to
all persons except such as can show a better one."
Washburn,
Real Property (5th edition),
volume 1, page 465.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1504-1542.
Consideration in Contracts.
"To the present writer it seems impossible to refer
consideration to a single source. At the present day it is
doubtless just and expedient to resolve every consideration
into a detriment to the promisee incurred at the request of
the promisor. But this definition of consideration would not
have covered the cases of the 16th century. There were then
two distinct forms of consideration: (1) detriment; (2) a
precedent debt. Of these detriment was the more ancient,
having become established in substance, as early as 1504. On
the other hand no case has been found recognizing the validity
of a promise to pay a precedent debt before 1542. These two
species of consideration, so different in their nature, are,
as would be surmised, of distinct origin. The history of
detriment is bound up with the history of special assumpsit,
whereas the consideration based upon a precedent debt must be
studied in the development of 'indebitatus assumpsit.'"
J. B. Ames,
History of Assumpsit
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 2, pages 1-2).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1520.
The Law of Parol Guaranty.
"It was decided in 1520, that one who sold goods to a third
person on the faith of the defendant's promise that the price
should be paid, might have an action on the case upon the
promise. This decision introduced the whole law of parol
guaranty. Cases in which the plaintiff gave his time or labor
were as much within the principle of the new action as those
in which he parted with property. And this fact was speedily
recognized. In Saint-Germain's book, published in 1531, the
student of law thus defines the liability of a promisor: 'If
he to whom the promise is made have a charge by reason of the
promise, … he shall have an action for that thing that was
promised, though he that made the promise have no worldly
profit by it.' From that day to this a detriment has always
been deemed a valid consideration for a promise if incurred at
the promisor's request."
J. B. Ames,
History of Assumpsit
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 2, page 14).
{1967}
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1535.
Statute of Uses.
"Before the passing of the Statute of Uses in the
twenty-seventh year of Henry VIII, attempts had been made to
protect by legislation the interests of creditors, of the
king, and of the lords, which were affected injuriously by
feoffments to uses. … The object of that Statute was by
joining the possession or seisen to the use and interest (or,
in other words, by providing that all the estate which would
by the common law have passed to the grantee to uses should
instantly be taken out of him and vested in 'cestui que use'),
to annihilate altogether the distinction between the legal and
beneficial ownership, to make the ostensible tenant, in every
case also the legal tenant, liable to his lord for feudal dues
and services,—wardship, marriage, and the rest. … By
converting the use into the legal interest the Statute did
away with the power of disposing of interests in lands by
will, which had been one of the most important results of the
introduction of uses. Probably these were the chief results
aimed at by the Statute of Uses. A strange combination of
circumstances—the force of usage by which practices had
arisen too strong even for legislation to do away with,
coupled with an almost superstitious adherence on the part of
the courts to the letter of the statute—produced the curious
result, that the effect of the Statute of Uses was directly
the reverse of its purpose, that by means of it secret
conveyances of the legal estate were introduced, while by a
strained interpretation of its terms the old distinction
between beneficial or equitable and legal ownership was
revived. What may be called the modern law of Real Property
and the highly technical and intricate system of conveyancing
which still prevails, dates from the legislation of Henry
VIII."
Kenelm E. Digby,
History of the Law of Real Property (4th edition),
pages 343-345.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1540-1542.
Testamentary Power.
"The power of disposing by will of land and goods has been of
slow growth in England. The peculiar theories of the English
land system prevented the existence of a testamentary power
over land until it was created by the Statute of Wills (32 &
34 Hen. VIII.) extended by later statutes, and although a
testamentary power over personal property is very ancient in
this country, it was limited at common law by the claims of
the testator's widow and children to their 'reasonable parts'
of his goods. The widow was entitled to one third, or if there
were no children to one half of her husband's personal estate;
and the children to one third, or if there was no widow to one
half of their father's personal estate, and the testator could
only dispose by his will of what remained. Whether the
superior claims of the widow and children existed all over
England or only in some counties by custom is doubted; but …
by Statutes of William and Mary, Will. III. and Geo. I.,
followed by the Wills Act (1 Vict. c. 26), the customs have
been abolished, and a testator's testamentary power now
extends to all his real and personal property."
Stuart C. Macaskie,
The Law of Executors and Administrators,
page 1.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1542.
Liability in Indebitatus Assumpsit on an Express Promise.
"The origin of indebitatus assumpsit may be explained in a few
words: Slade's case [4 Rep., 92a], decided in 1603, is
commonly thought to be the source of this action. But this is
a misapprehension. 'Indebitatus assumpsit' upon an express
promise is at least sixty years older than Slade's case. The
evidence of its existence throughout the last half of the
sixteenth century is conclusive. There is a note by Brooke,
who died in 1558, as follows: 'where one is indebted to me,
and he promises to pay before Michaelmas, I may have an action
of debt on the contract, or an action on the case on the
promise.'"
J. B. Ames,
History of Assumpsit
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 2, page 16).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1557.
Statute of Uses Rendered Nugatory.
"Twenty-two years after the passing of this statute (Mich.
Term 4 & 5 Ph. & M.) the judges by a decision practically
rendered the Statute nugatory by holding that the Statute will
not execute more than one use, and that if there be a second
use declared the Statute will not operate upon it. The effect
of this was to bring again into full operation the equitable
doctrine as to uses in lands."
A. H. Marsh,
History of the Court of Chancery,
pages 122-123.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1580.
Equal Distribution of Property.
"In Holland, all property, both real and personal, of persons
dying intestate, except land held by feudal tenure, was
equally divided among the children, under the provisions of an
act passed by the States in 1580. This act also contained a
further enlightened provision, copied from Rome, and since
adopted in other Continental Countries, which prohibited
parents from disinheriting their children except for certain
specified offences. Under this legal system, it became
customary for parents to divide their property by will equally
among their children, just as the custom of leaving all the
property to the eldest son grew up under the laws of England.
The Puritans who settled New England adopted the idea of the
equal distribution of property, in case there was no
will—giving to the eldest son, however, in some of the
colonies a double portion, according to the Old Testament
injunction,—and thence it has spread over the whole United
States."
D. Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
volume 2, page 452.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1589.
Earliest notice of Contract of Insurance.
"The first notice of the contract of insurance that appears in
the English reports, is a case cited in Coke's Reports [6
Coke's Rep., 47b], and decided in the 31st of Elizabeth; and
the commercial spirit of that age gave birth to the statute of
43rd Elizabeth, passed to give facility to the contract, and
which created the court of policies of assurance, and shows by
its preamble that the business of marine insurance had been in
immemorial use, and actively followed. But the law of
insurance received very little study and cultivation for ages
afterwards; and Mr. Park informs us that there were not forty
cases upon matters of insurance prior to the year 1756, and
even those cases were generally loose nisi prius notes,
containing very little information or claim to authority."
J. Kent,
Commentaries,
part 5, lecture 48.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1592.
A Highwayman as a Chief-Justice.
"In 1592, Elizabeth appointed to the office of Chief-Justice
of England a lawyer, John Popham, who is said to have
occasionally been a highwayman until the age of thirty. At
first blush this seems incredible, but only because such false
notions generally prevail regarding the character of the time.
The fact is that neither piracy nor robbery was considered
particularly discreditable at the court of Elizabeth.
{1968}
The queen knighted Francis Drake for his exploits as a pirate,
and a law on the statute-books, passed in the middle of the
century, gave benefit of clergy to peers of the realm when
convicted of highway robbery. Men may doubt, if they choose,
the stories about Popham, but the testimony of this statute
cannot be disputed."
D. Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
volume 1. page 366.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1650-1700.
Evidence.
"Best Evidence Rule."
"This phrase is an old one. During the latter part of the
seventeenth century and the whole of the eighteenth, while
rules of evidence were forming, the judges and text writers
were in the habit of laying down two principles; namely, (1)
that one must bring the best evidence that he can, and (2)
that if he does this, it is enough. These principles were the
beginning, in the endeavor to give consistency to the system
of evidence before juries. They were never literally
enforced,—they were principles and not exact rules; but for a
long time they afforded a valuable test. As rules of evidence
and exceptions to the rules became more definite, the field
for the application of the general principle of the 'Best
Evidence' was narrower. But it was often resorted to as a
definite rule and test in a manner which was very misleading.
This is still occasionally done, as when we are told in
McKinnon v. Bliss, 21 N. Y, p. 218, that 'it is a universal
rule founded on necessity, that the best evidence of which the
nature of the case admits is always receivable.' Greenleaf's
treatment of this topic (followed by Taylor) is perplexing and
antiquated. A juster conception of it is found in Best, Evid.
s. 88. Always the chief example of the 'Best Evidence'
principle was the rule about proving the contents of a
writing. But the origin of this rule about writings was older
than the 'Best Evidence' principle; and that principle may
well have been a generalization from this rule, which appears
to be traceable to the doctrine of profert. That doctrine
required the actual production of the instrument which was set
up in pleading. In like manner, it was said, in dealing with
the jury, that a jury could not specifically find the contents
of a deed unless it had been exhibited to them in evidence.
And afterwards when the jury came to hear testimony from
witnesses, it was said that witnesses could not undertake to
speak to the contents of a deed without the production of the
deed itself. … Our earliest records show the practice of
exhibiting charters and other writings to the jury."
J. B. Thayer,
Select Cases on Evidence,
page 726.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1600.
Mortgagee's Right to Possession.
"When this country was colonized, about A. D. 1600, the law of
mortgage was perfectly well settled in England. It was
established there that a mortgage, whether by deed upon
condition, by trust deed, or by deed and defeasance, vested
the fee, at law, in the mortgagee, and that the mortgagee,
unless the deed reserved possession to the mortgagor, was
entitled to immediate possession. Theoretically our ancestors
brought this law to America with them. Things ran on until the
Revolution. Mortgages were given in the English form, by deed
on condition, by deed and defeasance, or by trust deed. It was
not customary in Plymouth or Massachusetts Bay, and it is
probable that it was not customary elsewhere, to insert a
provision that the mortgagor, until default in payment, should
retain possession. Theoretically, during the one hundred and
fifty years from the first settlement to the Revolution, the
English rules of law governed all these transactions, and, as
matter of book law, every mortgagee of a house or a farm was
the owner of it, and had the absolute right to take possession
upon the delivery of the deed. But the curious thing about
this is, that the people generally never dreamed that such was
the law."
H. W. Chaplin,
The Story of Mortgage Law
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 4, page 12).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1601-1602.
Malicious Prosecution.
"The modern action for malicious prosecution, represented
formerly by the action for conspiracy, has brought down to our
own time a doctrine which is probably traceable to the
practice of spreading the case fully upon the record, namely,
that what is a reasonable and probable cause for a prosecution
is a question for the court. That it is a question of fact is
confessed, and also that other like questions in similar cases
are given to the jury. Reasons of policy led the old judges to
permit the defendant to state his case fully upon the record,
so as to secure to the court a greater control over the jury
in handling the facts, and to keep what were accounted
questions of law, i. e., questions which it was thought should
be decided by the judges out of the jury's hands. Gawdy, J.,
in such a case, in 1601-2, 'doubted whether it were a plea,
because it amounts to a non culpabilis. … But the other
justices held that it was a good plea, per doubt del lay
gents.' Now that the mode of pleading has changed, the old
rule still holds; being maintained, perhaps, chiefly by the
old reasons of policy."
J. B. Thayer,
Law and Fact in Jury Trials
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 4, page 147).
ALSO IN:
J. B. Thayer,
Select Cases on Evidence,
page 150.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1603.
Earliest reported case of Bills of Exchange.
"The origin and history of Bills of Exchange and other
negotiable instruments are traced by Lord Chief Justice
Cockburn in his judgment in Goodwin v. Robarts [L. R. 10 Ex.,
pages 346-358]. It seems that bills were first brought into
use by the Florentines in the twelfth century. From Italy the
use of them spread to France, and eventually they were
introduced into England. The first English reported case in
which they are mentioned is Martin v. Boure (Cro. Jac. 3),
decided in 1603. At first the use of Bills of Exchange seems
to have been confined to foreign bills between English and
foreign merchants. It was afterwards extended to domestic
bills between traders, and finally to bills of all persons
whether traders or not. The law throughout has been based on
the custom of merchants respecting them; the old form of
declaration on bill used always to state that it was drawn
'secundum usum et consuetudinem mercatorum.'"
M. D. Chalmers,
Bills of Exchange,
page xliv., introduction.
See, also,
MONEY AND BANKING, MEDIÆVAL.
{1969}
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1604.
Death Inferred from Long Absence.
"It is not at all modern to infer death from a long absence;
the recent thing is the fixing of a time of seven years, and
putting this into a rule. The faint beginning of it, as a
common-law rule, and one of general application in all
questions of life and death, is found, so far as our recorded
cases show, in Doe d. George v. Jesson (January, 1805). Long
before this time, in 1604, the 'Bigamy Act' of James I. had
exempted from the scope of its provisions, and so from the
situation and punishment of a felon (1) those persons who had
married a second time when the first spouse had been beyond
the seas for seven years, and (2) those whose spouse had been
absent for seven years, although not beyond the seas,—'the
one of them not knowing the other to be living within that
time.' This statute did not treat matters altogether as if the
absent party were dead; it did not validate the second
marriage in either case. It simply exempted a party from the
statutory penalty."
J. B. Thayer,
Presumptions and the Law of Evidence
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 3, page 151).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1609.
First Recognition of Right to Sue for Quantum Meruit.
"There seems to have been no recognition of the right to sue
upon an implied 'quantum meruit' before 1609. The innkeeper
was the first to profit by the innovation. Reciprocity
demanded that, if the law imposed a duty upon the innkeeper to
receive and keep safely, it should also imply a promise on the
part of the guest to pay what was reasonable. The tailor was
in the same case with the innkeeper, and his right to recover
upon a quantum meruit was recognized in 1610.". [Six
Carpenters' Case, 8 Rep., 147a.]
J. B. Ames,
History of Assumpsit
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 2, page 58).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1623.
Liability of Gratuitous Bailee to be Charged in Assumpsit,
established.
"The earliest attempt to charge bailees in assumpsit were made
when the bailment was gratuitous. These attempts, just before
and after 1600, were unsuccessful, because the plaintiffs
could not make out any consideration. The gratuitous bailment
was, of course, not a benefit, but a burden to the defendant;
and, on the other hand, it was not regarded as a detriment,
but an advantage to the plaintiff. But in 1623 it was finally
decided, not without a great straining, it must be conceded,
of the doctrine of consideration, that a bailee might be
charged in assumpsit on a gratuitous bailment."
J. B. Ames,
History of Assumpsit
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 2, page 6,
citing Wheatley v. Low, Palm., 281; Cro. Jac. 668).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1625 (circa).
Experiment in Legislation.
Limitation in time.
"The distinction between temporary and permanent Legislation
is a very old one." It was a distinction expressed at Athens;
but "we have no such variety of name. All are alike Acts of
Parliament. Acts in the nature of new departures in the Law of
an important kind are frequently limited in time, very often
with a view of gaining experience as to the practical working
of a new system before the Legislature commits itself to final
legislation on the subject, sometimes, no doubt, by way of
compromise with the Opposition, objecting to the passing of
such a measure at all. Limitation in time often occurs in old
Acts. Instances are the first Act of the first Parliament of
Charles I. (1 Car. 1., c. 1), forbidding certain sports and
pastimes on Sunday, and permitting others. The Book of Sports
of James I. had prepared the mind of the people for that more
liberal observance of Sunday which had been so offensive to
the Puritans of Elizabeth's reign, but it had not been down to
that time acknowledged by the Legislature. This was now done
in 1625, the Act was passed for the then Parliament, continued
from time to time, and finally (the experiment having
apparently succeeded) made perpetual in 1641. Another instance
is the Music Hall Act of 1752 passed it is said on the advice
of Henry Fielding, in consequence of the disorderly state of
the music halls of the period, and perhaps still more on
account of the Jacobite songs sometimes sung at such places.
It was passed for three years, and, having apparently put an
end to local disaffection, was made perpetual in 1755. Modern
instances are the Ballot Act, 1872, passed originally for
eight years, and now annually continued, the Regulation of
Railways Act, 1873, creating a new tribunal, the Railway
Commission, passed originally for five years, and annually
continued until made perpetual by the Railway and Canal
Traffic Act, 1888; the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, a new
departure in Social Legislation, expiring on the 31st
December, 1887, and since annually continued; and the Shop
Hours Regulation Act, 1886, a similar departure, expiring in
1888, and continued for the present Session. … (2) Place.
—It is in this respect that the Experimental method of
Parliament is most conspicuous. A law is enacted binding only
locally, and is sometimes extended to the whole or a part of
the realm, sometimes not. The old Statute of Circumspecte
Agatis (13 Edw. I., stat. 4) passed in 1285 is one of the
earliest examples. The point of importance in it is that it
was addressed only to the Bishop of Norwich, but afterwards
seems to have been tacitly admitted as law in the case of all
dioceses, having probably been found to have worked well at
Norwich. It was not unlike the Rescripts of the Roman
emperors, which, primarily addressed to an individual,
afterwards became precedents of general law."
James William
(Law Magazine & Review, London 1888-9),
4th ser., volume 14, page 306.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1630-1641.
Public Registry.
"When now we look to the United States, we find no difficulty
in tracing the history of the institution on this side of the
Atlantic. The first settlers of New York coming from Holland,
brought it with them. In 1636, the Pilgrims of Plymouth,
coming also from Holland, passed a law requiring that for the
prevention of frauds, all conveyances, including mortgages and
leases, should be recorded. Connecticut followed in 1639, the
Puritans of Massachusetts in 1641; Penn, of course, introduced
it into Pennsylvania. Subsequently every State of the Union
established substantially the same system."
D. Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
volume 2, page 463.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1650 (circa).
Law regarded as a Luxury.
"Of all the reforms needed in England, that of the law was
perhaps the most urgent. In the general features of its
administration the system had been little changed since the
days of the first Edward. As to its details, a mass of abuses
had grown up which made the name of justice nothing but a
mockery. Twenty thousand cases, it was said, stood for
judgment in the Court of Chancery, some of them ten, twenty,
thirty years old. In all the courts the judges held their
positions at the pleasure of the crown. They and their clerks,
the marshals, and the sheriffs exacted exorbitant fees for
every service, and on their cause-list gave the preference to
the suitor with the longest purse. Legal documents were
written in a barbarous jargon which none but the initiated
could understand.
{1970}
The lawyers, for centuries, had exercised their ingenuity in
perfecting a system of pleading, the main object of which
seems to have been to augment their charges, while burying the
merits of a cause under a tangle of technicalities which would
secure them from disentombment. The result was that law had
become a luxury for the rich alone."
D. Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
volume 2, pages 383-384.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1657.
Perhaps the first Indebitatus Assumpsit for Money paid to
Defendant by Mistake.
"One who received money from another to be applied in a
particular way was bound to give an account of his
stewardship. If he fulfilled his commission, a plea to that
effect would be a valid discharge. If he failed for any reason
to apply the money in the mode directed, the auditors would
find that the amount received was due to the plaintiff, who
would have a judgment for its recovery. If, for example, the
money was to be applied in payment of a debt erroneously
supposed to be due from the plaintiff to the defendant, …
the intended application of the money being impossible, the
plaintiff would recover the money in Account. Debt would also
lie in such cases. … By means of a fiction of a promise
implied in law 'Indebitatus Assumpsit' because concurrent with
Debt, and thus was established the familiar action of
Assumpsit for money had and received to recover money paid to
the defendant by mistake. Bonnel v. Fowke (1657) is, perhaps,
the first action of the kind."
J. B. Ames,
History of Assumpsit
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 2, page 66).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1670.
Personal Knowledge of Jurors.
"The jury were still required to come from the neighborhood
where the fact they had to try was supposed to have happened;
and this explains the origin of the venue (vicintum), which
appears in all indictments and declarations at the present
day. It points out the place from which the jury must be
summoned. … And it was said by the Court of Common Pleas in
Bushell's case (A. D. 1670), that the jury being returned from
the vicinage whence the cause of action arises, the law
supposes them to have sufficient knowledge to try the matters
in issue, 'and so they must, though no evidence were given on
either side in court';—and the case is put of an action upon
a bond to which the defendant pleads solvit ad diem, but
offers no proof:—where, the court said 'the jury is directed
to find for the plaintiff, unless they know payment was made
of their own knowledge, according to the plea.' This is the
meaning of the old legal doctrine, which is at first sight
somewhat startling, that the evidence in court is not binding
evidence to a jury. Therefore acting upon their own knowledge,
they were at liberty to give a verdict in direct opposition to
the evidence, if they so thought fit."
W. Forsyth,
Trial by Jury,
pages 134-136.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1678.
The Statute of Frauds.
"During Lord Nottingham's period of office, and partly in
consequence of his advice, the Statute of Frauds was passed.
Its main provisions are directed against the enforcement of
verbal contracts, the validity of verbal conveyances of
interests in land, the creation of trusts of lands without
writing, and the allowance of nuncupative wills. It also made
equitable interests in lands subject to the owner's debts to
the same extent as legal interests were. The statute carried
into legislative effect principles which had, so far back as
the time of Bacon's orders, been approved by the Court of
Chancery, and by its operation in the common law courts it
must often have obviated the necessity for equitable
interference. In modern times it has not infrequently been
decried, especially so far as it restricts the verbal proof of
contracts, but in estimating its value and operation at the
time it became a law it must be remembered that the evidence
of the parties to an action at law could not then be received,
and the Defendant might have been charged upon the
uncorroborated statement of a single witness which he was not
allowed to contradict, as Lord Eldon argued many years
afterwards, when the action upon the case for fraud was
introduced at law. It was therefore a most reasonable
precaution, while this unreasonable rule continued, to lay
down that the Defendant should be charged only upon writing
signed by him."
D. M. Kerly,
History of Equity,
page 170.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1680.
Habeas Corpus and Personal Liberty.
"The language of the great charter is, that no freeman shall
be taken or imprisoned but by the lawful judgment of his
equals, or by the law of the land. And many subsequent old
statutes expressly direct, that no man shall be taken or
imprisoned by suggestion or petition to the king or his
council, unless it be by legal indictment, or the process of
the common-law. By the petition of right, 3 Car. I., it is
enacted, that no freeman shall be imprisoned or detained
without cause shown. … By 16 Car. I., c. 10, if any person
be restrained of his liberty … , he shall, upon demand of
his counsel, have a writ of habeas corpus, to bring his body
before the court of king's bench or common pleas, who shall
determine whether the cause of his commitment be just. … And
by 31 Car. II., c. 2, commonly called the habeas corpus act,
the methods of obtaining this writ are so plainly pointed out
and enforced, that, … no subject of England can be long
detained in prison, except in those cases in which the law

requires and justifies such detainer. And, … it is declared
by 1 W. and M. St. 2, c. 2, that excessive bail ought not be
required."
W. Blackstone,
Commentaries, I., 135.
J. Kent,
Commentaries,
part 4, lecture 24.
For the text of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1679 (MAY).
A. D. 1683-1771.
Subsequent Birth of a Child revokes a Will.
"The first case that recognized the rule that the subsequent
birth of a child was a revocation of a will of personal
property, was decided by the court of delegates, upon appeal,
in the reign of Charles II.; and it was grounded upon the law
of the civilians [Overbury v. Overbury, 2 Show Rep., 253]. …
The rule was applied in chancery to a devise of real estate,
in Brown v. Thompson [I Ld. Raym. 441]; but it was received
with doubt by Lord Hardwicke and Lord Northington. The
distinction between a will of real and personal estate could
not well be supported; and Lord Mansfield declared, that he
saw no ground for a distinction. The great point was finally
and solemnly settled, in 1771, by the court of exchequer, in
Christopher v. Christopher [Dicken's Rep. 445], that marriage
and a child, were a revocation of a will of land."
J. Kent,
Commentaries,
part 6, lecture 68.
{1971}
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1688.
Dividing Line between Old and New Law.
The dividing line between the ancient and the modern English
reports may, for the sake of convenient arrangement, be placed
at the revolution in the year 1688. "The distinction between
the old and new law seems then to be more distinctly marked.
The cumbersome and oppressive appendages of the feudal tenures
were abolished in the reign of Charles II., and the spirit of
modern improvement, … began then to be more sensibly felt,
and more actively diffused. The appointment of that great and
honest lawyer, Lord Holt, to the station of chief justice of
the King's Bench, gave a new tone and impulse to the vigour of
the common law."
J. Kent,
Commentaries,
part 3, lecture 21.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1689.
First instance of an Action sustained for Damages for a Breach
of Promise to Account.
"It is worthy of observation that while the obligation to
account is created by law, yet the privity without which such
an obligation cannot exist is, as a rule, created by the
parties to the obligation. … Such then being the facts from
which the law will raise an obligation to account, the next
question is, How can such an obligation be enforced, or, what
is the remedy upon such an obligation? It is obvious that the
only adequate remedy is specific performance, or at least
specific reparation. An action on the case to recover damages
for a breach of the obligation, even if such an action would
lie, would be clearly inadequate, as it would involve the
necessity of investigating all the items of the account for
the purpose of ascertaining the amount of the damages, and
that a jury is not competent to do. In truth, however, such an
action will not lie. If, indeed, there be an actual promise to
account, either an express or implied in fact, an action will
lie for the breach of that promise; but as such a promise is
entirely collateral to the obligation to account, and as
therefore a recovery on the promise would be no bar to an
action on the obligation, it would seem that nominal damages
only could be recovered in an action on the promise, or at the
most only such special damages as the plaintiff had suffered
by the breach of the promise. Besides the first instance in
which an action on such a promise was sustained was as late as
the time of Lord Holt [Wilkyns v. Wilkyns, Carth. 89], while
the obligation to account has existed and been recognized from
early times."
C. C. Langdell,
A Brief Survey of Equity Jurisdiction
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 2, pages 250-251).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1689-1710.
Lord Holt and the Law of Bailments.
"The most celebrated case which he decided in this department
was that of Coggs v. Bernard, in which the question arose,
'whether, if a person promises without reward to take care of
goods, he is answerable if they are lost or damaged by his
negligence?' In a short compass he expounded with admirable
clearness and accuracy the whole law of bailment, or the
liability of the person to whom goods are delivered for
different purposes on behalf of the owner; availing himself of
his knowledge of the Roman civil Jaw, of which most English
lawyers were as ignorant as of the Institutes of Menu. … He
then elaborately goes over the six sorts of bailment, showing
the exact degree of care required on the part of the bailee in
each, with the corresponding degree of negligence, which will
give a right of action to the bailor. In the last he shows
that, in consideration of the trust, there is an implied
promise to take ordinary care; so that, although there be no
reward, for a loss arising from gross negligence the bailee is
liable to the bailor for the value of the goods. Sir William
Jones is contented that his own masterly 'Essay on the Law of
Bailment' shall be considered merely as a commentary upon this
judgment; and Professor Story, in his 'Commentaries on the Law
of Bailments,' represents it as 'a prodigious effort to
arrange the principles by which the subject is regulated in a
scientific order.'"
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Chief Justices,
volume 2, pages 113-114.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1703.
Implied Promises recognized.
"The value of the discovery of the implied promise in fact was
exemplified … in the case of a parol submission to an award.
If the arbitrators awarded the payment of a sum of money, the
money was recoverable in debt, since an award, after the
analogy of a judgment, created a debt. But if the award was
for the performance of a collateral act, … there was,
originally, no mode of compelling compliance with the award,
unless the parties expressly promised to abide by the decision
of the arbitrators. Tilford v. French (1663) is a case in
point. So, also, seven years later, 'it was said by Twisden,
J., [Anon., 1 Vent. 69], that if two submit to an award, this
contains not a reciprocal promise to perform; but there must
be an express promise to ground an action upon it.' This
doctrine was abandoned by the time of Lord Holt, who, …
said: 'But the contrary has been held since; for if two men
submit to the award of a third person, they do also thereby
promise expressly to abide by his determination, for agreeing
to refer is a promise in itself.'"
J. B. Ames,
History of Assumpsit
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 2, page 62).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1706.
Dilatory Pleas.
"Pleas to the jurisdiction, to the disability, or in
abatement, were formerly very often used as mere dilatory
pleas, without any foundation of truth, and calculated only
for delay; but now by statute 4 and 5 Ann., c. 16, no dilatory
plea is to be admitted, without affidavit made of the truth
thereof, or some probable matter shown to the court to induce
them to believe it true."
W. Blackstone,
Commentaries,
book 3, page 302.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1710.
Joint Stock Companies: Bubble Act.
"The most complicated, as well as the most modern, branch of
the law of artificial persons relates to those which are
formed for purposes of trade. They are a natural accompaniment
of the extension of commerce. An ordinary partnership lacks
the coherence which is required for great undertakings. Its
partners may withdraw from it, taking their capital with them,
and the 'firm' having as such no legal recognition, a contract
made with it could be sued upon, according to the common law
of England, only in an action in which the whole list of
partners were made plaintiffs or defendants. In order to
remedy the first of these inconveniences, partnerships were
formed upon the principle of a joint-stock, the capital
invested in which must remain at a fixed amount, although the
shares into which it is divided may pass from hand to hand.
This device did not however obviate the difficulty in suing,
nor did it relieve the partners, past and present, from
liability for debts in excess of their, past or present,
shares in the concern.
{1972}
In the interest not only of the share-partners, but also of
the public with which they had dealings, it was desirable to
discourage the formation of such associations; and the
formation of joint-stock partnerships, except such as were
incorporated by royal charter, was accordingly, for a time,
prohibited in England by the 'Bubble Act,' 6 Geo. I, c. 18. An
incorporated trading company, in accordance with the ordinary
principles regulating artificial persons, consists of a
definite amount of capital to which alone creditors of the
company can look for the satisfaction of their demands,
divided into shares held by a number of individuals who,
though they participate in the profits of the concern, in
proportion to the number of shares held by each, incur no
personal liability in respect of its losses. An artificial
person of this sort is now recognized under most systems of
law. It can be formed, as a rule, only with the consent of the
sovereign power, and is described as a 'societe,' or
'compagnie,' 'anonyme,' an 'Actiengesellschaft,' or
'joint-stock company limited.' A less pure form of such a
corporation is a company the shareholders in which incur an
unlimited personal liability. There is also a form resembling
a partnership 'en commandite,' in which the liability of some
of the shareholders is limited by their shares, while that of
others is unlimited. Subject to some exceptions, any seven
partners in a trading concern may, and partners whose number
exceeds twenty must, according to English law, become
incorporated by registration under the Companies Acts, with
either limited or unlimited liability as they may determine at
the time of incorporation."
Thomas Erskine Holland,
Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,
page 298.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1711.
Voluntary Restraint of Trade.
"The judicial construction of Magna Charta is illustrated in
the great case of Mitchell v. Reynolds (1 P. W., 181), still
the leading authority upon the doctrine of voluntary restraint
of trade, though decided in 1711, when modern mercantile law
was in its infancy. The Court (Chief Justice Parker),
distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary restraints of
trade, says as to involuntary restraints: 'The first reason
why such of these, as are created by grant and charter from
the crown and by-laws generally are void, is drawn from the
encouragement which the law gives to trade and honest
industry, and that they are contrary to the liberty of the
subject. Second, another reason is drawn from Magna Charta,
which is infringed by these acts of power. That statute says:
Nullus liber homo, etc., disseizetur de libero tenemento, vel
libertatibus vel liberis consuetudinibus suis, etc.; and these
words have been always taken to extend to freedom of trade.'"
Frederick N. Judson,
14 American Bar Association Report,
page 236.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1730.
Special Juries.
"The first statutory recognition of their existence occurs so
late as in the Act 3 Geo. II., ch. 25. But the principle seems
to have been admitted in early times. We find in the year 1450
(29 Hen. VI.) a petition for a special jury. … The statute
of George II. speaks of special juries as already well known,
and it declares and enacts that the courts at Westminster
shall, upon motion made by any plaintiff, prosecutor, or
defendant, order and appoint a jury to be struck before the
proper officer of the court where the cause is depending, 'in
such manner as special juries have been and are usually struck
in such courts respectively upon trials at bar had in the said
courts.'"
W. Forsyth,
Trial by Jury,
pages 143-144.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1730.
Written Pleadings to be in English.
"There was one great improvement in law proceedings which,
while he [Lord King] held the Great Seal, he at last
accomplished. From very ancient times the written pleadings,
both in criminal and civil suits, were, or rather professed to
be, in the Latin tongue, and while the jargon employed would
have been very perplexing to a Roman of the Augustan Age, it
was wholly unintelligible to the persons whose life, property,
and fame were at stake. This absurdity had been corrected in
the time of the Commonwealth, but along with many others so
corrected, had been reintroduced at the Restoration, and had
prevailed during five succeeding reigns. The attention of the
public was now attracted to it by a petition from the
magistracy of the North Riding of the county of York,
representing the evils of the old law language being retained
in legal process and proceedings, and praying for the
substitution of the native tongue. The bill, by the
Chancellor's direction, was introduced in the House of
Commons, and it passed there without much difficulty. In the
Lords it was fully explained and ably supported by the Lord
Chancellor, but it experienced considerable opposition. …
Amidst heavy forebodings of future mischief the bill passed,
and mankind are now astonished that so obvious a reform should
have been so long deferred."
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Chancellors,
volume 4, page 504.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1739-1744.
Oath according to one's Religion.
"Lord Hardwick established the rule that persons, though not
Christians, if they believe in a divinity, may be sworn
according to the ceremonies of their religion, and that the
evidence given by them so sworn is admissible in courts of
justice, as if, being Christians, they had been sworn upon the
Evangelists. This subject first came before him in
Ramkissenseat v. Barker, where, in a suit for an account
against the representatives of an East India Governor, the
plea being overruled that the plaintiff was an alien infidel,
a cross bill was filed, and an objection being made that he
could only be sworn in the usual form, a motion was made that
the words in the commission, 'on the holy Evangelists,' should
be omitted, and that the commissioners should be directed to
administer an oath to him in the manner most binding on his
conscience. … The point was afterwards finally settled in
the great case of Omychund v. Barker, where a similar
commission to examine witnesses having issued, the
Commissioners certified 'That they had sworn the witnesses
examined under it in the presence of Brahmin or priest of the
Gentoo religion, and that each witness touched the hand of the
Brahmin,—this being the most solemn form in which oaths are
administered to witnesses professing the Gentoo religion.'
Objection was made that the deposition so taken could not be
read in evidence; and on account of the magnitude of the
question, the Lord Chancellor called in the assistance of the
three chiefs of the common law Courts.—After a very long,
learned, and ingenious argument, which may be perused with
pleasure, they concurred in the opinion that the depositions
were admissible."
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Chancellors,
volume 5, pages 69-70.
{1973}
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1750.
Dale v. Hall, I Wits., 281, understood to be the first
reported case of an action of special assumpsit sustained
against a common carrier, on his implied contract.
"Assumpsit, … was allowed, in the time of Charles I., in
competition with Detinue and Case against a bailee for
custody. At a later period Lord Holt suggested that one might
'turn an action against a common carrier into a special
assumpsit (which the law implies) in respect of his hire.'
Dale v. Hall (1750) is understood to have been the first
reported case in which that suggestion was followed."
J. B. Ames,
History of Assumpsit
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 2, page 63).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1750-1800.
Demurrer to Evidence.
"Near the end of the last century demurrers upon evidence were
rendered useless in England, by the decision in the case of
Gibson v. Hunter (carrying down with it another great case,
that of Lickbarrow v. Mason, which, like the former, had come
up to the Lords upon this sort of demurrer), that the party
demurring must specify upon the record the facts which he
admits. That the rule was a new one is fairly plain from the
case of Cocksedge v. Fanshawe, ten years earlier. It was not
always followed in this country, but the fact that it was
really a novelty was sometimes not understood."
J. B. Thayer,
Law and Fact in Jury Trials
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 4, page 147).
ALSO IN:
J. B. Thayer,
Select Cases on Evidence,
page 149.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1756-1788.
Lord Mansfield and Commercial Law.
"In the reign of Geo. II., England had grown into the greatest
manufacturing and commercial country in the world, while her
jurisprudence had by no means been expanded or developed in
the same proportion. … Hence, when questions necessarily
arose respecting the buying and selling of goods,—respecting
the affreightment of ships,—respecting marine
insurances,—and respecting bills of exchange and promissory
notes, no one knew how they were to be determined. …
Mercantile questions were so ignorantly treated when they came
into Westminster Hall, that they were usually settled by
private arbitration among the merchants themselves. If an
action turning upon a mercantile question was brought in a
court of law, the judge submitted it to the jury, who
determined it according to their own notions of what was fair,
and no general rule was laid down which could afterwards be
referred to for the purpose of settling similar disputes. …
When he [Lord Mansfield] had ceased to preside in the Court of
King's Bench, and had retired to enjoy the retrospect of his
labors, he read the following just eulogy bestowed upon them
by Mr. Justice Buller, in giving judgment in the important
case of Lickbarrow v. Mason, respecting the effect of the
indorsement of a bill of lading:—'Within these thirty years
the commercial law of this country has taken a very different
turn from what it did before. Lord Hardwicke himself was
proceeding with great caution; not establishing any general
principle, but decreeing on all the circumstances put
together. Before that period we find that, in courts of law,
all the evidence in mercantile cases was thrown together; they
were left generally to a jury; and they produced no general
principle. From that time, we all know, the great study has
been to find some certain general principle, which shall be
known to all mankind, not only to rule the particular case
then under consideration, but to serve as a guide for the
future. Most of us have heard these principles stated,
reasoned upon, enlarged, and explained, till we have been lost
in admiration at the strength and stretch of the
understanding. And I should be very sorry to find myself under
a necessity of differing from any case upon this subject which
has been decided by Lord Mansfield, who may be truly said to
be the founder of the commercial law of this country.' …
With regard to bills of exchange and promissory notes, Lord
Mansfield first promulgated many rules that now appear to us
to be as certain as those which guide the planets in their
orbits. For example, it was till then uncertain whether the
second indorser of a bill of exchange could sue his immediate
indorser without having previously demanded payment from the
drawer. … He goes on to explain [in Heylyn v. Adamson, 2
Burr., 669], … that the maker of a promissory note is in the
same situation as the acceptor of a bill of exchange, and that
in suing the indorser of the note it is necessary to allege
and to prove a demand on the maker. … Lord Mansfield had
likewise to determine that the indorser of a bill of exchange
is discharged if he receives no notice of there having been a
refusal to accept by the drawee (Blesard v. Herst, 6 Burr.,
2670); and that reasonable time for giving notice of the
dishonor of a bill or note is to be determined by the Court as
matter of law, and is not to be left to the jury as matter of
fact, they being governed by the circumstances of each
particular case. (Tindal v. Brown, 1 Term. Rep., 167.) It
seems strange to us how the world could go on when such
questions of hourly occurrence, were unsettled. … There is
another contract of infinite importance to a maritime people.
… I mean that between ship-owners and merchants for the
hiring of ships and carriage of goods. … Till his time, the
rights and liabilities of these parties had remained undecided
upon the contingency, not unlikely to arise, of the ship being
wrecked during the voyage, and the goods being saved and
delivered to the consignee at an intermediate port. Lord
Mansfield settled that freight is due pro rata itineris—in
proportion to the part of the voyage performed. … Lord
Mansfield's familiarity with the general principles of ethics,
… availed him on all occasions when he had to determine on
the proper construction and just fulfilment of contracts. The
question having arisen, for the first time, whether the seller
of goods by auction, with the declared condition that they
shall be sold to 'the highest bidder,' may employ a
'puffer,'—an agent to raise the price by bidding,—he thus
expressed himself: [Bexwell v. Christie, Cowp., 395] '… The
basis of all dealings ought to be good faith; so more
especially in these transactions, where the public are brought
together upon a confidence that the articles set up to sale
will be disposed of to the highest real bidder. That can never
be the case if the owner may secretly enhance the price by a
person employed for that purpose. … I cannot listen to the
argument that it is a common practice, … the owner violates
his contract with the public if, by himself or his agent, he
bids upon his goods, and no subsequent bidder is bound to take
the goods at the price at which they are knocked down to
him.'"
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Chief Justices,
volume 2, pages 308-314.
{1974}
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1760.
Judicial Independence.
"A glance into the pages of the Judges of England, by
Foss, will show with what ruthless vigour the Stuarts
exercised their prerogative of dismissing Judges whose
decisions were displeasing to the court. Even after the
Revolution, the prerogative of dismissal, which was supposed
to keep the Judges dependent on the Crown, was jealously
defended. When in 1692 a Bill passed both Houses of
Parliament, establishing the independence of Judges by law,
and confirming their salaries, William III. withheld his Royal
assent. Bishop Burnet says, with reference to this exercise of
the Veto, that it was represented to the King by some of the
Judges themselves, that it was not fit that they should be out
of all dependence on the Court. When the Act of Settlement
secured that no Judge should be dismissed from office, except
in consequence of a conviction for some offence, or the
address of both Houses of Parliament, the Royal jealousy of
the measure is seen by the promise under which that
arrangement was not to take effect till the deaths of William
III. and of Anne, and the failure of their issue respectively,
in other words, till the accession of the House of Hanover. It
was not till the reign of George III. that the Commissions of
the Judges ceased to be void on the demise of the Crown."
J. G. S. MacNeill,
Law Magazine and Review, 4th series,
volume 16 (1890-91), page 202.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1760.
Stolen Bank Notes the Property of a Bona Fide Purchaser.
"The law of bills of exchange owes much of its scientific and
liberal character to the wisdom of the great jurist, Lord
Mansfield. Sixteen years before the American Revolution, he
held that bank notes, though stolen, become the property of
the person to whom they are bona fide delivered for value
without knowledge of the larceny. This principle is later
affirmed again and again as necessary to the preservation of
the circulation of all the paper in the country, and with it
all its commerce. Later there was a departure from this
principle in the noted English case of Gill v. Cubitt, in
which it was held that if the holder for value took it under
circumstances which ought to have excited the suspicion of a
prudent and careful man, he could not recover. This case
annoyed courts and innocent holders for years, until it was
sat upon, kicked, cuffed, and overruled, and the old doctrine
of 1760 re-established, which is now the undisputed and
settled law of England and this country."
Wm. A. McClean,
Negotiable Paper
(The Green Bag, volume 5, page 86).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1768.
Only one Business Corporation Chartered in this Country before
the Declaration of Independence.
"Pennsylvania is entitled to the honor of having chartered the
first business corporation in this country, 'The Philadelphia
Contributionship for Insuring Houses from Loss by Fire.' It
was a mutual insurance company, first organized in 1752, but
not chartered until 1768. It was the only business corporation
whose charter antedated the Declaration of Independence. The
next in order of time were: 'The Bank of North America,'
chartered by Congress in 1781 and, the original charter having
been repealed in 1785, by Pennsylvania in 1787; 'The
Massachusetts Bank,' chartered in 1784; 'The Proprietors of
Charles River Bridge,' in 1785; 'The Mutual Assurance Company'
(Philadelphia), in 1786; 'The Associated Manufacturing Iron
Co.' (N. Y.), in 1786. These were the only joint-stock
business corporations chartered in America before 1787. After
that time the number rapidly increased, especially in
Massachusetts. Before the close of the century there were
created in that State about fifty such bodies, at least half
of them turn-pike and bridge companies. In the remaining
States combined, there were perhaps as many more. There was no
great variety in the purposes for which these early companies
were formed. Insurance, banking, turn-pike roads,
toll-bridges, canals, and, to a limited extent, manufacturing
were the enterprises which they carried on."
S. Williston,
History of the Law of Business Corporations before 1800
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 2, pp. 165-166).
A. D. 1776.
Ultimate property in land.
"When, by the Revolution, the Colony of New York became
separated from the Crown of Great Britain, and a republican
government was formed, The People succeeded the King in the
ownership of all lands within the State which had not already
been granted away, and they became from thenceforth the source
of all private titles."
Judge Comstock,
People v. Rector, etc., of Trinity Church,
22 N. Y., 44-46.
"It is held that only such parts of the common law as, with
the acts of the colony in force on April 19, 1775, formed part
of the law of the Colony on that day, were adopted by the
State; and only such parts of the common and statute law of
England were brought by the colonists with them as suited
their condition, or were applicable to their situation. Such
general laws thereupon became the laws of the Colony until
altered by common consent, or by legislative enactment. The
principles and rules of the common law as applicable to this
country are held subject to modification and change, according
to the circumstances and condition of the people and
government here. … By the English common law, the King was
the paramount proprietor and source of all title to all land
within his dominion, and it was considered to be held
mediately or immediately of him. After the independence of the
United States, the title to land formerly possessed by the
English Crown in this country passed to the People of the
different States where the land lay, by virtue of the change
of nationality and of the treaties made. The allegiance
formerly due, also, from the people of this country to Great
Britain was transferred, by the Revolution, to the governments
of the States."
James Gerard,
Titles to Real Estate (3rd edition),
pages 26 and 5.
"Hence the rule naturally follows, that no person can, by any
possible arrangement, become invested with the absolute
ownership of land. But as that ownership must be vested
somewhere, or great confusion, if not disturbance, might
result, it has, therefore, become an accepted rule of public
law that the absolute and ultimate right of property shall be
regarded as vested in the sovereign or corporate power of the
State where the land lies. This corporate power has been
naturally and appropriately selected for that purpose, because
it is the only one which is certain to survive the generations
of men as they pass away. Wherever that sovereign power is
represented by an individual, as in England, there the
absolute right of property to all land in the kingdom is
vested in that individual whoever succeeds to the sovereignty,
succeeds to that right of property and holds it in trust for
the nation.
{1975}
In this country, where the only sovereignty recognized in
regard to real property, is represented by the State in its
corporate capacity, that absolute right of property is vested
in the State."
Anson Bingham,
Law of Real Property,
page 3.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1778.
First Instance of Assumpsit upon a Vendor's Warranty.
"A vendor who gives a false warranty may be charged to-day, of
course, in contract; but the conception of such a warranty, as
a contract is quite modern. Stuart v. Wilkens [3 Doug., 18],
decided in 1778, is said to have been the first instance of an
action of assumpsit upon a vendor's warranty."
J. B. Ames,
History of Assumpsit
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 2, page 8).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1783.
Lord Mansfield laid foundation of Law of Trade-Marks.
"The symbolism of commerce, conventionally called
'trade-marks,' is, according to Mr. Browne, in his excellent
work on trade-marks, as old as commerce itself. The Egyptians,
the Chinese, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, all used
various marks or signs to distinguish their goods and
handiwork. The right to protection in such marks has come to
be recognized throughout the civilized world. It is, however,
during the last seventy or eighty years that the present
system of jurisprudence has been built up. In 1742 Lord
Hardwick refused an injunction to restrain the use of the
Great Mogul stamp on cards. In 1783 Lord Mansfield laid the
foundation of the law of trade-marks as at present developed,
and in 1816, in the case of Day v. Day, the defendant was
enjoined from infringing the plaintiff's blacking label. From
that time to the present day there have arisen a multitude of
cases, and the theory of the law of trade-marks proper may be
considered as pretty clearly expounded. In 1875 the
Trade-marks Registration Act provided for the registration of
trade-marks, and defined what could in future properly be a
trade-mark. In this country the Act of 1870, corrected by the
Act of 1881, provided for the registration of trade-marks. The
underlying principle of the law of trade-marks is that of
preventing one man from acquiring the reputation of another by
fraudulent means, and of preventing fraud upon the public; in
other words, the application of the broad principles of
equity."
Grafton D. Cushing,
Cases Analogous to Trade-marks
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 4, page 321).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1790.
Stoppage in Transitu, and Rights of Third Person
under a Bill of Lading.
"Lord Loughborough's most elaborate common law judgment was in
the case of Lichbarrow v. Mason, when he presided in the court
of Exchequer Chamber, on a writ of error from the Court of
King's Bench. The question was one of infinite importance to
commerce—'Whether the right of the unpaid seller of goods to
stop them while they are on their way to a purchaser who has
become insolvent, is divested by an intermediate sale to a
third person, through the indorsement of the bill of lading,
for a valuable consideration?' He concluded by saying:—'From
a review of all the cases it does not appear that there has
ever been a decision against the legal right of the consignor
to stop the goods in transitu before the case which we have
here to consider. The rule which we are now to lay down will
not disturb but settle the notions of the commercial port of
this country on a point of very great importance, as it
regards the security and good faith of their transactions. For
these reasons we think the judgment of the Court of King's Bench
ought to be reversed.' But a writ of error being brought in
the House of Lords, this reversal was reversed, and the right
of the intermediate purchaser as against the original seller,
has ever since been established."
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Chancellors,
volume 6, pages 138-139.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1792.
Best-Evidence rule.
"In Grant v. Gould, 2 H. Bl. p. 104 (1792), Lord Loughborough
said: 'That all common law courts ought to proceed upon the
general rule, namely, the best evidence that the nature of the
case will admit, I perfectly agree.' But by this time it was
becoming obvious that this 'general rule' was misapplied and
over-emphasized. Blackstone, indeed, repeating Gilbert, had
said in 1770, in the first editions of his Commentaries (III.
368) as it was said in all the later ones: 'The one general
rule that runs through all the doctrine of trials is this,
that the best evidence the nature of the case will admit of
shall always be required, if possible to be had; but, if not
possible, then the best evidence that can be had shall be
allowed. For if it be found that there is any better evidence
existing than is produced, the very not producing it is a
presumption that it would have detected some falsehood that at
present is concealed.' But in 1794, the acute and learned
Christian, in editing the twelfth edition, pointed out the
difficulties of the situation: 'No rule of law,' he said, 'is
more frequently cited, and more generally misconceived, than
this. It is certainly true when rightly understood; but it is
very limited in its extent and application. It signifies
nothing more than that, if the best legal evidence cannot
possibly be produced, the next best legal evidence shall be
admitted.'"
J. B. Thayer,
Select Cases on Evidence,
page 732.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1794.
First Trial by Jury in United States Supreme Court.
"In the first trial by jury at the bar of the Supreme Court of
the United States, in 1794, Chief-Justice Jay, after remarking
to the jury that fact was, for the jury and law for the court,
went on to say: 'You have, nevertheless, a right to take upon
yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well
as the fact in controversy.' But I am disposed to think that
the common-law power of the jury in criminal cases does not
indicate any right on their part; it is rather one of those
manifold illogical and yet rational results, which the good
sense of the English people brought about, in all parts of
their public affairs, by way of easing up the rigor of a
strict application of rules."
J. B. Thayer,
Law and Fact in Jury Trials
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 4, page 171).
ALSO IN:
J. B. Thayer,
Select Cases on Evidence,
page 153.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1813-1843.
Insolvents placed under Jurisdiction of a Court, and able to
claim Protection by a Surrender of Goods.
"It was not until 1813 that insolvents were placed under the
jurisdiction of a court, and entitled to seek their discharge
on rendering a true account of all their debts and property. A
distinction was at length recognized between poverty and crime.
This great remedial law restored liberty to crowds of wretched
debtors. In the next thirteen years upwards of 50,000 were set
free. Thirty years later, its beneficent principles were
further extended, when debtors were not only released from
confinement, but able to claim protection to their liberty, on
giving up all their goods."
T. E. May,
Constitutional History of England
(Widdleton's edition)
volume 2, page 271.
See, also, DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING.
{1976}
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1819.
The Dartmouth College Case.
"The framers of the Constitution of the United States, moved
chiefly by the mischiefs created by the preceding legislation
of the States, which had made serious encroachments on the
rights of property, inserted a clause in that instrument which
declared that 'no State shall pass any ex post-facto law, or
law impairing the obligation of contracts.' The first branch
of this clause had always been understood to relate to
criminal legislation, the second to legislation affecting
civil rights. But, before the case of Dartmouth College v.
Woodward occurred, there had been no judicial decisions
respecting the meaning and scope of the restraint in regard to
contracts. … The State court of New Hampshire, in deciding
this case, had assumed that the college was a public
corporation, and on that basis had rested their judgment;
which was, that between the State and its public corporations
there is no contract which the State cannot regulate, alter,
or annul at pleasure. Mr. Webster had to overthrow this
fundamental position. If he could show that this college was a
private eleemosynary corporation, and that the grant of the
right to be a corporation of this nature is a contract between
the sovereign power and those who devote their funds to the
charity, and take the incorporation for its better management,
he could bring the legislative interference within the
prohibition of the Federal Constitution. … Its important
positions, … were these: 1. That Dr. Wheelock was the
founder of this college, and as such entitled by law to be
visitor, and that he had assigned all the visitatorial powers
to the trustees. 2. That the charter created a private and not
a pubic corporation, to administer a charity, in the
administration of which the trustees had a property, which the
law recognizes as such. 3. That the grant of such a charter is
a contract between the sovereign power and its successors and
those to whom it is granted and their successors. 4. That the
legislation which took away from the trustees the right to
exercise the powers of superintendence, visitation, and
government, and transferred them to another set of trustees,
impaired the obligation of that contract. … On the
conclusion of the argument, the Chief Justice intimated that a
decision was not to be expected until the next term. It was
made in February, 1819, fully confirming the grounds on which
Mr. Webster had placed the cause. From this decision, the
principle in our constitutional jurisprudence, which regards a
charter of a private corporation as a contract, and places it
under the protection of the Constitution of the United States,
takes its date. To Mr. Webster belongs the honor of having
produced its judicial establishment."
G. T. Curtis,
Life of Daniel Webster,
volume 1, pages 165-169 (5th edition).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1823.
Indian Right of Occupancy.
"The first case of importance that came before the court of
last resort with regard to the Indian question had to do with
their title to land. This was the case of Johnson v. McIntosh,
8 Wheaton, 543. In this case, Chief Justice Marshall delivered
the opinion of the court and held that discovery gave title to
the country by whose subjects or by whose authority it was
made, as against all persons but the Indians as occupants;
that this title gave a power to grant the soil and to convey a
title to the grantees, subject only to the Indian right of
occupancy; and that the Indians could grant no title to the
lands occupied by them, their right being simply that of
occupancy and not of ownership. The Chief Justice says: 'It
has never been doubted that either the United States or the
several States had a clear title to all the lands within the
boundary lines described in the treaty (of peace between
England and United States) subject only to the Indians' right
of occupancy, and that the exclusive power to extinguish that
right was vested in that government which might
constitutionally exercise it. … The United States, then,
have unequivocally acceded to that great and broad rule by
which its civilized inhabitants now hold this country. They
hold and assert in themselves the title by which it was
acquired. They maintain, as all others have maintained, that
discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian
title of occupancy, either by purchase or by conquest; and
gave also a right to such a degree of sovereignty as the
circumstances of the people would allow them to exercise. The
power now possessed by the government of the United States to
grant lands resided, while we were colonies, in the crown or
its grantees. The validity of the title given by either has
never been questioned in our courts. It has been exercised
uniformly over territory in possession of the Indians. The
existence of this power must negative the existence of any
right which may conflict with and control it. An absolute
title to lands cannot exist, at the same time, in different
persons, or in different governments. An absolute must be an
exclusive title, or at least a title which excludes all others
not compatible with it. All our institutions recognize the
absolute title of the crown, subject only to the Indian right
of occupancy, and recognize the absolute title of the crown to
extinguish that right. This is incompatible with an absolute
and complete title in the Indians.'"
William B. Hornblower,
14 American Bar Association Report 264-265.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1826
Jurors from the Body of the County.
"In the time of Fortescue, who was lord chancellor in the
reign of Henry VI. [1422-61], with the exception of the
requirement of personal knowledge in the jurors derived from
near neighborhood of residence, the jury system had become in
all its essential functions similar to what now exists. …
The jury were still required to come from the neighborhood
where the fact they had to try was supposed to have happened;
and this explains the origin of the venire (vicinetum), which
appears in all indictments and declarations at the present
day. It points out the place from which the jury must be
summoned. … Now, by 6 George IV., ch. 50, the jurors need
only be good and lawful men of the body of the county."
W. Forsyth,
Trial by Jury,
chapter 7, section 3.
{1977}
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1828.
Lord Tenterden's Act.
"Be it therefore enacted … , That in Actions of Debt or upon
the Case grounded upon any Simple Contract or Acknowledgement
or Promise by Words only shall be deemed sufficient Evidence
of a new or continuing Contract, … unless such
Acknowledgement or Promise shall be made or contained by or in
some Writing to be signed by the Party chargeable thereby."
Statutes at Large,
volume 68, 9 George IV., c. 14.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1833.
Wager of Law abolished, and Effect upon Detinue.
"This form of action (detinue) was also formerly subject (as
were some other of our legal remedies), to the incident of
'wager of law' ('vadiatio legis'),—a proceeding which
consisted in the defendant's discharging himself from the
claim on his own oath, bringing with him at the same time into
court eleven of his neighbors, to swear that they believed his
denial to be true. This relic of a very ancient and general
institution, which we find established not only among the
Saxons and Normans, but among almost all the northern nations
that broke in upon the Roman empire, continued to subsist
among us even till the last reign, when it was at length
abolished by 3 and 4 Will, IV. c. 42, s. 13: and as the wager
of law used to expose plaintiffs in detinue to great
disadvantage, it had the effect of throwing that action almost
entirely out of use, and introducing in its stead the action
of trover and conversion."
Stephens,
Commentaries,
volume 3, pages 442-443 (8th edition).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1834.
Real Actions abolished.
"The statutes of 32 H. VIII., c. 2, and 21 Jac. I., c. 16 (so
far as the latter applied to actions for the recovery of land)
were superseded by 3 & 4 Wm. IV, c. 27. The latter statute
abolished the ancient real actions, made ejectment (with few
exceptions) the sole remedy for the recovery of land, and, for
the first time, limited directly the period within which an
ejectment might be brought. It also changed the meaning of
'right of entry,' making it signify simply the right of an
owner to the possession of land of which another person has
the actual possession, whether the owner's estate is devested
or not. In a word, it made a right of entry and a right to
maintain ejectment synonymous terms, and provided that
whenever the one ceased the other should cease also; i. e., it
provided that whenever the statute began to run against the
one right, it should begin to run against the other also, and
that, when it had run twenty years without interruption, both
rights should cease; and it also provided that the statute
should begin to run against each right the moment that the
right began to exist, i. e., the moment that the actual
possession and the right of possession became separated. The
statute, therefore, not only ignored the fact that ejectment
(notwithstanding its origin) is in substance purely in rem
(the damages recovered being only nominal), and assumed that
it was, on the contrary, in substance purely in personam, i.
e., founded upon tort, but it also assumed that every actual
possession of land, without a right of possession, is a tort."
C. C. Langdell,
Summary of Equity Pleading,
pages 144-145.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1836.
Exemption Laws.
"Our State legislatures commenced years ago to pass laws
exempting from execution necessary household goods and
personal apparel, the horses and implements of the farmer, the
tools and instruments of the artisan, etc. Gradually the
beneficent policy of such laws has been extended. In 1828, Mr.
Benton warmly advocated in the Senate of the United States the
policy of a national homestead law. The Republic of Texas
passed the first Homestead Act, in 1836. It was the great gift
of the infant Republic of Texas to the world. In 1849, Vermont
followed; and this policy has since been adopted in all but
eight States of the Union. By these laws a homestead (under
various restrictions as to value) for the shelter and
protection of the family is now exempt from execution or
judicial sale for debt, unless both the husband and the wife
shall expressly join in mortgaging it or otherwise expressly
subjecting it to the claims of creditors."
J. F. Dillon,
Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America,
page 360.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1837.
Employer's liability.
"No legal principle, with a growth of less than half a
century, has become more firmly fixed in the common law of
to-day, than the rule that an employer, if himself without
fault, is not liable to an employee injured through the
negligence of a fellow-employee engaged in the same general
employment. This exception to the well known doctrine of
'respondeat superior,' although sometimes considered an old
one, was before the courts for the first time in 1837, in the
celebrated case of Priestly v. Fowler, 3 M. & W. 1, which it
is said, has changed the current of decisions more radically
than any other reported case. … The American law, though in
harmony with the English, seems to have had an origin of its
own. In 1841 Murray v. The South Carolina Railroad Company, 1
Mc. & M. 385, decided that a railroad company was not liable
to one servant injured through the negligence of another
servant in the same employ. Although this decision came a few
years after Priestly v. Fowler, the latter case was cited by
neither counsel nor court. It is probable, therefore, that the
American Court arrived at its conclusion entirely independent
of the earlier English case,—a fact often lost sight of by
those who in criticising the rule, assert that it all sprang
from an ill-considered opinion by Lord Abinger in Priestly v.
Fowler. The leading American case, however, is Farwell v.
Boston and Worcester Railroad Company, 4 Met. 49, which,
following the South Carolina case, settled the rule in the
United States. It has been followed in nearly every
jurisdiction, both State and Federal."
Marland C. Hobbs,
Statutory Changes in Employers Liability
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 2, pages 212-213).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1838.
Arrests on Mesne Process for Debt abolished, and Debtor's
Lands, for first time, taken in Satisfaction of Debt.
"The law of debtor and creditor, until a comparatively recent
period, was a scandal to a civilized country. For the smallest
claim, any man was liable to be arrested on mesne process,
before legal proof of the debt. … Many of these arrests were
wanton and vexatious; and writs were issued with a facility
and looseness which paced the liberty of every man—suddenly
and without notice—at the mercy of any one who claimed
payment of a debt. A debtor, however honest and solvent, was
liable to arrest. The demand might even be false and
fraudulent: but the pretended creditor, on making oath of the
debt, was armed with this terrible process of the law. The
wretched defendant might lie in prison for several months
before his cause was heard; when, even if the action was
discontinued or the debt disproved, he could not obtain his
discharge without further proceedings, often too costly for a
poor debtor, already deprived of his livelihood by
imprisonment.
{1978}
No longer even a debtor,—he could not shake off his bonds.
… The total abolition of arrests on mesne process was
frequently advocated, but it was not until 1888 that it was at
length accomplished. Provision was made for securing
absconding debtors; but the old process for the recovery of a
debt in ordinary cases, which had wrought so many acts of
oppression, was abolished. While this vindictive remedy was
denied, the debtor's lands were, for the first time, allowed
to be taken in satisfaction of a debt; and extended facilities
were afterwards afforded for the recovery of small claims, by
the establishment of county courts."
T. E. May,
Constitutional History of England (Widdleton's edition),
volume 2, pages 267-268.
See, also, DEBT: LAWS CONCERNING.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1839-1848.
Emancipation of Women.
"According to the old English theory, a woman was a chattel,
all of whose property belonged to her husband. He could beat
her as he might a beast of burden, and, provided he was not
guilty of what would be cruelty to animals, the law gave no
redress. In the emancipation of women Mississippi led off, in
1839, New York following with its Married Women's Act of 1848,
which has been since so enlarged and extended, and so
generally adopted by the other states, that, for all purposes
of business, ownership of property, and claim to her
individual earnings, a married woman is to-day, in America, as
independent as a man."
D. Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
volume 1, page 71.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1842.
One who takes Commercial Paper as Collateral is a Holder for
Value.
"Take the subject of the transfer of such paper as collateral
security for, or even in the payment of, a pre-existing
indebtedness. We find some of the courts holding that one who
takes such paper as collateral security for such a debt is a
holder for value; others, that he is not, unless he extends
the time for the payment of the secured debt or surrenders
something of value, gives some new consideration; while still
others hold that one so receiving such paper cannot be a
holder for value; and some few hold that even receiving the
note in payment and extinguishment of a pre-existing debt does
not constitute one a holder for value. The question, as is
known to all lawyers, was first presented to the Supreme Court
of the United States in Swift vs. Tyson (16 Peters, 1). There,
however, the note had been taken in payment of the debt. It
was argued in that case that the highest court in New York had
decided that one so taking a note was not a holder for value,
and it was insisted in argument that the contract, being made
in New York, was to be governed by its law; but the court,
through Justice Story—Justice Catron alone
dissenting—distinctly and emphatically repudiated the
doctrine that the Federal court was to be governed on such