History for ready reference, Volume 3, Greece to Nibelungen

by J. N. Larned

questions 'by the decisions of the courts of the State where
the contract was made, and held the holder a holder for
value."
Henry C. Tompkins,
13 American Bar Association Report,
page 255.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1845.
Interest of Disseisee transferable.
"It was not until 1845 that by statute the interest of the
disseisee of land became transferable. Similar statutes have
been enacted in many of our States. In a few jurisdictions the
same results have been obtained by judicial legislation. But
in Alabama, Connecticut, Dakota, Florida, Kentucky,
Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and
Tennessee, and presumably in Maryland and New Jersey, it is
still the law that the grantee of a disseisee cannot maintain
an action in his own name for the recovery of the land."
J. B. Ames,
The Disseisin of Chattels
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 3, page 25).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1846.
Ultra vires.
"When railway companies were first created with Parliamentary
powers of a kind never before entrusted to similar bodies, it
soon became necessary to determine whether, when once called
into existence, they were to be held capable of exercising, as
nearly as possible, all the powers of a natural person, unless
expressly prohibited from doing so, or whether their acts must
be strictly limited to the furtherance of the purpose for
which they had been incorporated. The question was first
raised in 1846, with reference to the right of a railway
company to subsidise a harbour company, and Lord Langdale, in
deciding against such a right, laid down the law in the
following terms:—'Companies of this kind, possessing most
extensive powers, have so recently been introduced into this
country that neither the legislature nor the courts of law
have yet been able to understand all the different lights in
which their transactions ought properly to be viewed. … To
look upon a railway company in the light of a common
partnership, and as subject to no greater vigilance than
common partnerships are, would, I think, be greatly to mistake
the functions which they perform and the powers which they
exercise of interference not only with the public but with the
private rights of all individuals in this realm. … I am
clearly of opinion that the powers which are given by an Act
of Parliament, like that now in question, extend no further
than is expressly stated in the Act, or is necessarily and
properly required for carrying into effect the undertaking and
works which the Act has expressly sanctioned.' [Citing Coleman
v. Eastern Counties Rw. Co., 10 Beav., 18.] This view, though
it has sometimes been criticised, seems now to be settled law.
In a recent case in the House of Lords, the permission which
the Legislature gives to the promoters of a company was
paraphrased as follows:—'You may meet together and form
yourselves into a company, but in doing that you must tell all
who may be disposed to deal with you the objects for which you
have been associated. Those who are dealing with you will
trust to that memorandum of association, and they will see
that you have the power of carrying on business in such a
manner as it specifies. You must state the objects for which
you are associated, so that the persons dealing with you will
know that they are dealing with persons who can only devote
their means to a given class of objects.' [Citing Riche v.
Ashbury Carriage Co., L R., 7 E. & I., App. 684.] An act of a
corporation in excess of its powers with reference to third
persons is technically said to be ultra vires [perhaps first
in South Yorkshire Rw. Co. v. Great Northern R. Co., 9 exch.
84 (1853)]; and is void even if unanimously agreed to by all
the corporators. The same term is also, but less properly,
applied to a resolution of a majority of the members of a
corporation which being beyond the powers of the corporation
will not bind a dissentient minority of its members."
Thomas Erskine Holland,
Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition, page 301.
(Compare Article by Seymour D. Thompson in American Law
Review, May-June, 1894).
{1979}
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1848-1883.
The New York Codes and their Adoption in other Communities.
"The 'New York Mail' gives the following information as to the
extent to which our New York Codes have been adopted in other
communities. In most instances the codes have been adopted
substantially in detail, and in others in principle: 'The
first New York Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, went into
effect on the 1st of July, 1848. It was adopted in Missouri in
1849; in California in 1851; in Kentucky in 1851; in Ohio in
1853; in the four provinces of India between 1853 and 1856; in
Iowa in 1855; in Wisconsin in 1856; in Kansas in 1859; in
Nevada in 1861; in Dakota in 1862; in Oregon in 1862; in Idaho
in 1864; in Montana in 1864; in Minnesota in 1866; in Nebraska
in 1866; in Arizona in 1866; in Arkansas in 1868; in North
Carolina in 1868; in Wyoming in 1869; in Washington Territory
in 1869; in South Carolina in 1870; in Utah in 1870; in
Connecticut in 1879; in Indiana in 1881. In England and
Ireland by the Judicature Act of 1873; this Judicature Act has
been followed in many of the British Colonies; in the Consular
Courts of Japan, in Shanghai, in Hong Kong and Singapore,
between 1870 and 1874. The Code of Criminal Procedure, though
not enacted in New York till 1881, was adopted in California
in 1850; in India at the same time with the Code of Civil
Procedure; in Kentucky in 1854; in Iowa in 1858; in Kansas in
1859; in Nevada in 1861; in Dakota in 1862; in Oregon in 1864;
in Idaho in 1864; in Montana in 1864; in Washington Territory
in 1869; in Wyoming in 1869; in Arkansas in 1874; in Utah in
1876; in Arizona in 1877; in Wisconsin in 1878; in Nebraska in
1881; in Indiana in 1881; in Minnesota in 1883. The Penal
Code, though not enacted in New York until 1882, was adopted
in Dakota in 1865 and in California in 1872. The Civil Code,
not yet enacted in New York, though twice passed by the
Legislature, was adopted in Dakota in 1866 and in California
in 1872, and has been much used in the framing of substantive
laws for India. The Political Code, reported for New York but
not yet considered, was adopted in California in 1872. Thus it
will be seen that the State of New York has given laws to the
world to an extent and degree unknown since the
Roman Codes followed Roman conquests.'"
The Albany Law Journal,
volume 39, page 261.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1848.
Simplification of Procedure.
"In civil matters, the greatest reform of modern times has
been the simplification of procedure in the courts, and the
virtual amalgamation of law and equity. Here again America
took the lead, through the adoption by New York, in 1848, of a
Code of Practice, which has been followed by most of the other
states of the Union, and in its main features has lately been
taken up by England."
D. Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
volume 1, page 70.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1848.
Reform in the Law of Evidence.
"The earliest act of this kind in this country was passed by
the Legislature of Connecticut in 1848. It is very broad and
sweeping in its provisions. It is in these words: 'No person
shall be disqualified as a witness in any suit or proceeding
at law, or in equity, by reason of his interest in the event
of the same, as a party or otherwise, or by reason of his
conviction of a crime; but such interest or conviction may be
shown for the purpose of affecting his credit.'
(Revised Statutes of Connecticut, 1849,
page 86, section 141.
In the margin of the page the time of the
passage of the law is given as 1848.)
This act was drafted and its enactment secured by the
Honorable Charles J. McCurdy, a distinguished lawyer and the
Lieutenant-Governor of that State. A member of Judge McCurdy's
family, having been present at the delivery of this lecture at
New Haven in 1892, called my attention to the above fact,
claiming, and justly, for this act the credit of leading in
this country the way to such legislation. But he was mistaken
in his claim that it preceded similar legislation in England,
although its provisions are an improvement on the contemporary
enactments of the like kind in that country."
John F. Dillon,
Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America,
page 374, notes.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1851.
Bentham's Reforms in the Law of Evidence.
"In some respects his [Bentham's] 'Judicial Evidence,' … is
the most important of all his censorial writings on English
Law. In this work he exposed the absurdity and perniciousness
of many of the established technical rules of evidence. …
Among the rules combatted were those relating to the
competency of witnesses and the exclusion of evidence on
various grounds, including that of pecuniary interest. He
insisted that these rules frequently caused the miscarriage of
justice, and that in the interest of justice they ought to be
swept away. His reasoning fairly embraces the doctrine that
parties ought to be allowed and even required to testify. …
But Bentham had set a few men thinking. He had scattered the
seeds of truth. Though they fell on stony ground they did not
all perish. But verily reform is a plant of slow growth in the
sterile gardens of the practising and practical lawyer.
Bentham lived till 1832, and these exclusionary rules still
held sway. But in 1843, by Lord Denman's Act, interest in
actions at common law ceased, as a rule, to disqualify; and in
1846 and 1851, by Lord Brougham's Acts, parties in civil
actions were as a rule made competent and compellable to
testify. I believe I speak the universal judgment of the
profession when I say changes more beneficial in the
administration of justice have rarely taken place in our law,
and that it is a matter of profound amazement, as we look back
upon it, that these exclusionary rules ever had a place
therein, and especially that they were able to retain it until
within the last fifty years."
J. F. Dillon,
Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America,
pages 339-341.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1852-1854.
Reform in Procedure.
"A great procedure reform was effected by the Common Law
Procedure Acts of 1852 and 1854 as the result of their
labours." The main object of the Acts was to secure that the
actual merits of every case should be brought before the
judges unobscured by accidental and artificial questions
arising upon the pleadings, but they also did something to
secure that complete adaptability of the common law courts for
finally determining every action brought within them, which
the Chancery Commissioners of 1850 had indicated as one of the
aims of the reformers. Power was given to the common law courts
to allow parties to be interrogated by their opponents, to
order discovery of documents, to direct specific delivery of
goods, to grant injunctions, and to hear interpleader actions,
and equitable pleas were allowed to be urged in defence to
common law actions."
D. M. Kerly,
History of Equity,
page 288.
{1980}
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1854.
"Another mode" (besides common law lien).
"Another mode of creating a security is possible, by which not
merely the ownership of the thing but its possession also
remains with the debtor. This is called by the Roman lawyers
and their modern followers 'hypotheca.' Hypothecs may arise by
the direct application of a rule of law, by judicial decision,
or by agreement. Those implied by law, generally described as
'tacit hypothecs,' are probably the earliest. They are first
heard of in Roman law in connection with that right of a
landlord over the goods of his tenant, which is still well
known on the Continent and in Scotland under its old name, and
which in England takes the form of a right of Distress.
Similar rights were subsequently granted to wives, pupils,
minors, and legatees, over the property of husbands, tutors,
curators, and heirs, respectively. The action by which the
praetor Servius first enabled a landlord to claim the goods of
his defaulting tenant in order to realize his rent, even if
they had passed into the hands of third parties, was soon
extended so as to give similar rights to any creditor over
property which its owner had agreed should be held liable for
a debt. A real right was thus created by the mere consent of
the parties, without any transfer of possession, which
although opposed to the theory of Roman law, became firmly
established as applicable both to immoveable and moveable
property. Of the modern States which have adopted the law of
hypothec, Spain perhaps stands alone in adopting it to the
fullest extent. The rest have, as a rule, recognized it only
in relation to immoveables. Thus the Dutch law holds to the
maxim 'mobilia non habent sequelam,' and the French Code,
following the 'coutumes' of Paris and Normandy, lays down that
'les meubles n'ont pas de suite par hypotheque.' But by the
'Code de Commerce,' ships, though moveables, are capable of
hypothecation; and in England what is called a mortgage, but
is essentially a hypothec, of ships is recognized and
regulated by the 'Merchant Shipping Acts,' under which the
mortgage must be recorded by the registrar of the port at
which the ship itself is registered [17 and 18 Vic. c. 104].
So also in the old contract of 'bottomry,' the ship is made
security for money lent to enable it to proceed upon its
voyage."
T. E. Holland,
Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,
p. 203.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1854-1882.
Simplification of Titles and Transfers of Land in England.
"For the past fifty years the project of simplifying the
titles and transfer of land has received great attention in
England. In the year 1854 a royal commission was created to
consider the subject. The report of this commission, made in
1857, was able and full so far as it discussed the principles
of land transfer which had been developed to that date. It
recommended a limited plan of registration of title. This
report, and the report of the special commission of the House
of Commons of 1879, have been the foundation of most of the
subsequent British legislation upon the subject. Among the
more prominent acts passed may be named Lord Westbury's Act of
1862, which attempted to establish indefeasible titles; Lord
Cairns' Land Transfer Act of 1875, which provided for
guaranteed titles upon preliminary examinations; the
Conveyancing and Law of Property Act of 1881, which
established the use of short forms of conveyances; and Lord
Cairns' Settled Land Act of 1882."
Dwight H. Olmstead,
13 American Bar Association Report,
page 267.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1855.
Suits against a State or Nation.
"In England the old common law methods of getting redress from
the Crown were by 'petition de droit' and 'monstrans le
droit,' in the Court of Chancery or the Court of Exchequer,
and in some cases by proceedings in Chancery against the
Attorney-General. It has recently been provided by statute [23
& 24 Vic., c. 24] that a petition of right may be entitled in
anyone of the superior Courts in which the subject-matter of
the petition would have been cognisable, if the same had been
a matter in dispute between subject and subject, and that it
shall be left with the Secretary of State for the Home
Department, for her Majesty's consideration, who, if she shall
think fit, may grant her fiat that right be done, whereupon an
answer, plea, or demurrer shall be made on behalf of the
Crown, and the subsequent proceedings be assimulated as far as
practicable to the course of an ordinary action. It is also
provided that costs shall be payable both to and by the Crown,
subject to the same rules, so far as practicable, as obtain in
proceedings between subject and subject."
T. E. Holland,
Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,
page 337.
The United States Court of Claims was established in 1855. For
State courts of claims see Note in 16 Abbott's New Cases 436
and authorities there referred to.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1858.
The Contractual Theory of Marriage as affecting Divorce.
"The doctrine may be resolved into two propositions-(a) that a
marriage celebrated abroad cannot be dissolved but by a Court
of the foreign country; (b) that a marriage in England is
indissoluble by a foreign Court. The first proposition has
never been recognized in any decision in England. Even before
the Act of 1858 it is extremely doubtful if the English Courts
would have scrupled to decree a divorce â mensâ where the
marriage was had in a foreign country, and certainly after the
Statutes they did not hesitate to grant a divorce, though the
marriage took place abroad (Ratcliff v. Ratcliff, 1859, 1 Sw.
& Tr. 217). It is true that in cases where the foreign Courts
have dissolved a marriage celebrated in their own country
between persons domiciled in that country, these sentences
were regarded as valid here, and some credit was given to the
fact of the marriage having been celebrated there (Ryan v.
Ryan, 1816, 2 Phill. 332; Argent v. Argent, 1865, 4 Sw. & Tr.
52); but bow far it influenced the learned Judges does not
appear; the main consideration being the circumstance of
domicile. The second proposition has been generally supposed
by writers both in England and America (Story, Wharton) to
have been introduced by Lolley's Case, 1812, Ruse. & Ry. 237,
and followed in Tovey v. Lindsay, 1813, 1 Dow. 117, and
McCarthy v. De Caix, 1831, 2 Cl. & F. 568, and only to have
been abandoned in 1858 (Dicey), or in 1868 in Shaw v. Gould.
But the case of Harvey v. Farnie, 1880-1882, 5 P. D. 153; 6 P.
D. 35, 8 App. C. 48, has now shown that the Contractual theory
had no permanent hold whatever in this country, that it did
not originate with Lolley's Case and was not adopted by Lord
Eldon but that it arose from a mistaken conception of Lord
Brougham as to the point decided in the famous Resolution, and
was never seriously entertained by any other Judge in England,
and we submit this is correct."
E. H. Monnier,
Law Magazine & Review,
12 ser., volume 17 (London, 1891-2), page 82.
{1981}
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1873.
The Judicature Acts.
"The first Judicature Act was passed in 1873 under the
auspices of Lord Selborne and Lord Cairns. It provided for the
consolidation of all the existing superior Courts into one
Supreme Court, consisting of two primary divisions, a High
Court of Justice and a Court of Appeal. … Law and Equity, it
was provided, were to be administered concurrently by every
division of the Court, in all civil matters, the same relief
being granted upon equitable claims or defences, … as would
have previously been granted in the Court of Chancery; no
proceeding in the Court was to be stayed by injunction
analogous to the old common injunction but the power for any
branch of the Court to stay proceedings before itself was of
course to be retained; and the Court was to determine the
entire controversy in every matter that came before it. By the
25th section of the Act rules upon certain of the points where
differences between Law and Equity had existed, deciding in
favour of the latter, were laid down, and it was enacted
generally that in the case of conflict, the rules of Equity
should prevail."
D. M. Kerly,
History of Equity,
page 293.
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1882.
Experiments in Codification in England.
"The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 is, I believe, the first code
or codifying enactment which has found its way into the
English Statute Book. By a code, I mean a statement under the
authority of the legislature, and on a systematic plan, of the
whole of the general principles applicable to any given branch
of the law. A code differs from a digest inasmuch as its
language is the language of the legislature, and therefore
authoritative; while the propositions of a digest merely
express what is, in the opinion of an individual author, the
law on any given subject. In other words the words
propositions of a code are law, while the propositions of a
digest may or may not be law."
M. D. Chalmers,
An Experiment in Codification
(Law Quarterly Review,
volume 2, page 125).
COMMON LAW: A. D. 1889.
Passage of Block-Indexing Act.
"The history of Land Transfer Reform in the United States is
confined, almost exclusively, to matters which have occurred
in the State of New York during the past ten years, and which
culminated in the passage of the Block-Indexing Act for the
city, of New York of 1889. In January, 1882, a report was made
by a special committee of the Association of the Bar of the
city of New York, which had been appointed to consider and
report what changes, if any, should be made in the manner of
transferring title to land in the city and State. The
committee reported that by reason of the accumulated records
in the offices of the county clerk and register of deeds of
the city, 'searches practically could not be made in those
offices,' and recommended the appointment of a State
commission, which should consider and report a mode of
transferring land free from the difficulties of the present
system. The report was adopted by the association, and during
the same year like recommendations were made by the Chamber of
Commerce and by real estate and other associations of the
city."
D. H. Olmstead,
13 American Bar Association Report,
pages 269-270.
----------COMMON LAW: End----------
----------CRIMINAL LAW: Start----------
Criminal Law.
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1066-1272.
The Ordinary Criminal Courts.
"In a very few words the history of the ordinary courts is as
follows: Before the Conquest the ordinary criminal court was
the County or Hundred Court, but it was subject to the general
supervision and concurrent jurisdiction of the King's Court.
The Conqueror and his sons did not alter this state of things,
but the supervision of the King's Court and the exercise of
his concurrent jurisdiction were much increased both in
stringency and in frequency, and as time went on narrowed the
jurisdiction and diminished the importance of the local court.
In process of time the King's Court developed itself into the
Court of King's Bench and the Courts of the Justices of
Assize, Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery, or to use the
common expression, the Assize Courts; and the County Court, so
far as its criminal jurisdiction was concerned, lost the
greater part of its importance. These changes took place by
degrees during the reigns which followed the Conquest, and
were complete at the accession of Edward I. In the reign of
Edward III. the Justices of the Peace were instituted, and
they, in course of time, were authorized to hold Courts for
the trial of offenders, which are the Courts of Quarter
Sessions. The County Court, however, still retained a separate
existence, till the beginning of the reign of Edward IV., when
it was virtually, though not absolutely, abolished. A vestige
of its existence is still to be traced in Courts Leet."
Sir James F. Stephen,
History of the Criminal Law,
volume 1, pages 75-76.
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1166.
Disappearance of Compurgation in Criminal Cases.
"In criminal cases in the king's courts, compurgation is
thought to have disappeared in consequence of what has been
called 'the implied prohibition' of the Assize of Clarendon,
in 1166. But it remained long in the local and ecclesiastical
courts. Palgrave preserves as the latest instances of
compurgation in criminal cases that can be traced, some cases
as late as 1440-1, in the Hundred Court of Winchelsea in
Sussex. They are cases of felony, and the compurgation is with
thirty-six neighbors. They show a mingling of the old and the
new procedure."
J. B. Thayer,
The Older Modes of Trial
(Harvard Law Review., volume 5, page 59).
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1166-1215.
Jury in Criminal Cases.
"It seems to have been possible, even before the decree of the
Fourth Lateran Council, in … 1215, to apply the jury to
criminal cases when ever the accused asked for it. … The
Assize of Clarendon, in 1166, with its apparatus of an
accusing jury and a trial by ordeal is thought to have done
away in the king's courts with compurgation as a mode of trial
for crime; and now the Lateran Council, in forbidding
ecclesiastics to take part in trial by ordeal, was deemed to
have forbidden that mode of trial."
Jas. B. Thayer,
The Jury and its Development
(Harvard Law Review, volume 5, page 265).
{1982}
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1176 (circa).
"Eyres," and Criminal Jurisdiction.
"It is enough for me to point out that, on the circuits
instituted by Henry II, and commonly distinguished as 'eyres',
by way of pre-eminence, the administration of criminal
justice, was treated, not as a thing by itself, but as one
part, perhaps the most prominent and important part, of the
general administration of the country, which was put to a
considerable extent under the superintendence of the justices
in eyre. Nor is this surprising when we consider that fines,
amercements, and forfeitures of all sorts were items of great
importance in the royal revenue. The rigorous enforcement of
all the proprietary and other profitable rights of the Crown
which the articles of eyre confided to the justices was
naturally associated with their duties as administrators of
the criminal law, in which the king was deeply interested, not
only because it protected the life and property of his
subjects, but also because it contributed to his revenue."
Sir J. F. Stephen,
History of the Criminal Law of England,
volume 1, page 102.
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1198-1199.
Trial by Ordeal.
"The earliest instance of the ordeal [see ORDEAL] in our
printed judicial records occurs in 1198-9, on an appeal of
death, by a maimed person, where two of the defendants are
adjudged to purge themselves by the hot iron. But within
twenty years or so this mode of trial came to a sudden end in
England, through the powerful agency of the Church,—an event
which was the more remarkable because Henry II., in the Assize
of Clarendon (1166) and again in that of Northampton (1176),
providing a public mode of accusation in the case of the
larger crimes, had fixed the ordeal as the mode of trial. The
old form of trial by oath was no longer recognized in such
cases in the king's courts. It was the stranger, therefore,
that such quick operation should have been allowed in England
to the decree, in November, 1215, of the Fourth Lateran
Council at Rome. That this was recognized and accepted within
about three years (1218-19) by the English crown is shown by
the well-known writs of Henry III., to the judges, dealing
with the puzzling question of what to do for a mode of trial,
'cum prohibitum sit per Ecclesiam Romanam judicium ignis et
aquae.' I find no case of trial by ordeal in our printed
records later than Trinity Term of the 15 John (1213)."
J. B. Thayer,
The Older Modes of Trial
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 5, pages 64-65).
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1215.
Two Juries in Criminal Cases.
"The ordeal was strictly a mode of trial. What may clearly
bring this home to one of the present day is the well-known
fact that it gave place, not long after the Assize of
Clarendon, to the petit jury, when Henry III. bowed to the
decree of the fourth Lateran Council (1215) abolishing the
ordeal. It was at this point that our cumbrous, inherited
system of two juries in criminal cases had its origin."
J. B. Thayer,
Presumptions and the Law of Evidence
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 3, page 159, note).
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1215.
Had Coroners Common Law Power as to Fires?
"Although Magna Charta took away the power of the Coroner of
holding Pleas of the Crown, that is of trying the more
important crimes, there was nothing to forbid him from
continuing to receive accusations against all offenders. This
he did, and continues to do to the present day, without
challenge, in cases of sudden or unexplained deaths. Nor is it
denied that he has done so and may do so in other matters,
such as in treasure trove, wreck of the sea and deodands. The
difficulty, of course, is to know whether the Coroner was or
was not in the habit of holding inquests on fires. There is no
evidence that he had not the power to do so. On the contrary,
we think the extracts from the ancient writers which we have
before quoted, are on the whole in favour of his having that
power. Before Magna Charta he had the power to try all serious
crimes; arson would unquestionably be one of them. Magna
Charta only took a way his power of trying them, not of making
a preliminary investigation, otherwise an inquest."
Sherston Baker,
Law Magazine & Review (London, 1886-7),
4th ser., volume 12, page 268.
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1272-1875.
King's Bench.
The Supreme Criminal Court.
"From the reign of Edward I, to the year 1875 it [the Court of
King's Bench] continued to be the Supreme Criminal Court of
the Realm, with no alterations in its powers or constitution
of sufficient importance to be mentioned except that during
the Commonwealth it was called the Upper Bench."
Sir J. F. Stephen,
History of Criminal Law of England,
volume 1, page 94.
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1276.
Coroner's Jury.
"The earliest instance that occurs of any sort of preliminary
inquiry into crimes with a view to subsequent proceedings is
the case of the coroner's inquest. Coroners, according to Mr.
Stubbs, originated in the year 1194, but the first authority
of importance about their duties is to be found in Bracton. He
gives an account of their duties so full as to imply that in
his day their office was comparatively modern. The Statute de
Officio Coronatoris (4 Edward I., st. 2, A. D. 1276) is almost
a transcript of the passage in Bracton. It gives the coroner's
duty very fully, and is, to this day, the foundation of the
law on the subject."
Sir J. F. Stephen,
History of the Criminal Law of England,
volume 1, page 217.
ALSO IN:
W. Forsyth,
Trial by Jury,
page 187.
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1285.
Courts of Oyer and Terminer.
"The first express mention of them with which I am acquainted
is in the statute 13 Edw. I., c. 29 (A. D. 1285), which taken
in connection with some subsequent authorities throws
considerable light on their nature. They were either general
or special. General when they were issued to commissioners
whose duty it was to hear and determine all matters of a
criminal nature within certain local limits, special when the
commission was confined to particular cases. Such special
commissions were frequently granted at the prayer of
particular individuals. They differed from commissions of gaol
delivery principally in the circumstance that the commission
of Oyer and Terminer was 'ad inquirendum, audiendum, et
terminandum,' whereas that of gaol delivery is 'ad gaolam
nostram castri nostri de C. de prisonibus in ea existentibus
hac vice deliberandum,' the interpretation put upon which was
that justices of Oyer and Terminer could proceed only upon
indictments taken before themselves, whereas justices of gaol
delivery had to try everyone found in the prison which they
were to deliver. On the other hand, a prisoner on bail could
not be tried before a justice of gaol delivery, because he
would not be in the gaol, whereas if he appeared before
justices of Oyer and Terminer he might be both indicted and
tried."
Sir J. F. Stephen,
History of the Criminal Law of England,
volume 1, page 106.
{1983}
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1305.
Challenging Jury for Cause.
"The prisoner was allowed to challenge peremptorily, i. e.
without showing cause, any number of jurors less than
thirty-five, or three whole juries. When or why he acquired
this right it is difficult to say. Neither Bracton nor Britton
mention it, and it is hard to reconcile it with the fact that
the jurors were witnesses. A man who might challenge
peremptorily thirty-five witnesses could always secure
impunity. It probably arose at a period when the separation
between the duties of the jury and the witnesses was coming to
be recognized. The earliest statute on the subject, 33 Edw. I,
st. 4 (A. D. 1305), enacts 'that from henceforth,
notwithstanding it be alleged by them that sue for the king
that the jurors of those inquests, or some of them, be not
indifferent for the king, yet such inquests shall not remain
untaken for that cause, but if they that sue for the king will
challenge any of those jurors, they shall assign of the
challenge a cause certain.'"
Sir J. F. Stephen,
History of the Criminal Law of England,
volume 1, pages 301-302.
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1344.
Justices of the Peace.
"In 1344 (18 Edw. Ill, st. 2, c. 2) it was enacted that 'two
or three of the best of reputation in the counties shall be
assigned keepers of the peace by the King's Commission, … to
hear and determine felonies and trespasses done against the
peace in the same counties, and to inflict punishment
reasonably.' This was the first act by which the Conservators
of the Peace obtained judicial power."
Sir J. F. Stephen,
History of the Criminal Law of England,
volume 1, page 113.
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1506.
Insanity as a Defence.
The earliest adjudication upon the legal responsibility of an
insane person occurred in the Year Book of the 21 Henry VII.
American Law Review,
volume 15, page 717.
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1547.
Two Lawful Witnesses required to Convict.
"In all cases of treason and misprision of treason,—by
statutes l Edw. VI. c. 12; 5 & 6 Edw. VI. c. 11, and 7 & 8
Will. III. c. 3,—two lawful witnesses are required to convict
a prisoner; unless he shall willingly and without violence
confess the same. And, by the last-mentioned statute, it is
declared, that both of such witnesses must be to the same
overt act of treason; or one to one overt act, and the other
to another overt act of the same species of treason, and not
of distinct heads or kinds: and that no evidence shall be
admitted to prove any overt act, not expressly laid in the
indictment."
Sir J. F. Stephen,
Commentaries,
volume 4, page 425 (8th edition).
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1592.
Criminal Trials under Elizabeth.
"In prosecutions by the State, every barrier which the law has
ever attempted to erect for the protection of innocence was
ruthlessly cast down. Men were arrested without the order of a
magistrate, on the mere warrant of a secretary of state or
privy councillor, and thrown into prison at the pleasure of
the minister. In confinement they were subjected to torture,
for the rack rarely stood idle while Elizabeth was on the
throne. If brought to trial, they were denied the aid of a
counsel and the evidence of witnesses in their behalf. Nor
were they confronted with the witnesses against them, but
written depositions, taken out of court and in the absence of
the prisoner, were read to the jury, or rather such portions
of them as the prosecution considered advantageous to its
side. On the bench sat a judge holding office at the pleasure
of the crown, and in the jury-box twelve men, picked out by
the sheriff, who themselves were punished if they gave a
verdict of acquittal."
D. Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
volume 1, page 367.
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1600 (circa).
Capital Punishment.
"Sir James Fitz James Stephen, in his History of Criminal
Law, estimates that at the end of the sixteenth century
there were about 800 executions per year in England (volume 1,
468). Another sentence in vogue in England before that time
was to be hanged, to have the bowels burned, and to be
quartered. Beccaria describes the scene where 'amid clouds of
writhing smoke the groans of human victims, the crackling of
their bones, and the flying of their still panting bowels were
a pleasing spectacle and agreeable harmony to the frantic
multitude.' (chapter 39.) As late as the reign of Elizabeth,
… the sentence of death in England was to be hung, drawn and
quartered. Campian, the Jesuit, was tortured before trial
until his limbs were dislocated on the rack, and was carried
helpless into Westminster Hall for trial before the Chief
Justice of England, unable to raise an arm in order to plead
not guilty. He was sentenced to be hung, drawn and quartered,
which meant legally, that upon being hung he was to be cut
down while yet living, and dragged at the tail of a horse, and
then before death should release him, to be hewn in pieces,
which were to be sent dispersed to the places where the
offense was committed or known, to be exhibited in attestation
of the punishment, the head being displayed in the most
important place, as the chief object of interest. In the
process of hanging, drawing and quartering, Froude says that
due precautions were taken to prolong the agony. Campian's
case is specially interesting, as showing the intervention of
a more humane spirit to mitigate the barbarity of the law. As
they were about to cut him down alive from the gibbet, the
voice of some one in authority cried out: Hold, till the man
is dead.' This innovation was the precursor of the change in
the law so as to require the sentence to be that he be hanged
by the neck until he is dead. It is not generally known that
the words 'until he is dead' are words of mercy inserted to
protect the victim from the torture and mutilation which the
public had gathered to enjoy."
Austin Abbott,
Address before New York Society of Medicine Journal
(The Advocate, Minn., 1889, volume 1, page 71).
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1641-1662.
No Man shall be compelled to Criminate himself.
"What … is the history of this rule? … Briefly, these
things appear: 1st. That it is not a common law rule at all,
but is wholly statutory in its authority. 2d. That the object
of the rule, until a comparatively late period of its
existence, was not to protect from answers in the king's court
of justice, but to prevent a usurpation of jurisdiction on
the part of the Court Christian (or ecclesiastical tribunals).
3d. That even as thus enforced the rule was but partial and
limited in its application. 4th. That by gradual perversion of
function the rule assumed its present form, but not earlier
than the latter half of the seventeenth century. … But
nothing can be clearer than that it was a statutory rule. …
{1984}
The first of these were 16 Car. I., c. 2 (1641) and provided
that no one should impose any penalty in ecclesiastical
matters, nor should 'tender … to any … person whatsoever
any corporal oath whereby he shall be obliged to confess or
accuse himself of any crime or any … thing whereby he shall
be exposed to any censure or penalty whatever.' This probably
applied to ecclesiastical courts alone. The second (13 Car.
II., c. 12, 1662) is more general, providing that 'no one
shall administer to any person whatsoever the oath usually
called ex officio, or any other oath, whereby such persons may
be charged or compelled to confess any criminal matter.' …
The Statute of 13 Car. II. is cited in Scurr's Case, but
otherwise neither of them seems to have been mentioned; nor do
the text-books, as a rule, take any notice of them.
Henceforward, however, no question arises in the courts as to
the validity of the privilege against self-crimination, and
the statutory exemption is recognized as applying in
common-law courts us well as in others. … This maxim, or
rather the abuse of it in the ecclesiastical courts, helps in
part to explain the shape which the general privilege now has
taken. … We notice that most of the church's religious
investigations, … were conducted by means of commissions or
inquisitions, not by ordinary trials upon proper presentment;
and thus the very rule of the canon law itself was continually
broken, and persons unsuspected and unbetrayed 'per famam'
were compelled, 'seipsum prodere,' to become their own
accusers. This, for a time, was the burden of the complaint.
… Furthermore, in rebelling against this abuse of the
canon-law rule, men were obliged to formulate their reasons
for objecting to answer the articles of inquisitions. … They
professed to be willing to answer ordinary questions, but not
to betray themselves to disgrace and ruin, especially as where
the crimes charged were, as a rule, religious offences and not
those which men generally regard as offences against social
order. In this way the rule began to be formulated and
limited, as applying to the disclosure of forfeitures and
penal offences. In the course of the struggle the aid of the
civil courts was invoked, … and towards the end of the
seventeenth century, … it found a lodgement in the practice
of the Exchequer, of Chancery, and of the other courts. There
had never been in the civil courts any complaint based on the
same lines, or any demand for such a privilege. … But the
momentum of this right, wrested from the ecclesiastical courts
after a century of continual struggle, fairly carried it over
and fixed it firmly in the common-law practice also."
John H. Wigmore,
Nemo Tenetur seipsum Prodere
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 5, pages 71-88).
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1660-1820.
187 Capital Offenses added to Criminal Code in England.
"From the Restoration to the death of George III.,—a period
of 160 years,—no less than 187 capital offenses were added to
the criminal code. The legislature was able, every year, to
discover more than one heinous crime deserving of death. In
the reign of George II. thirty-three Acts were passed creating
capital offenses; in the first fifty years of George III., no
less than sixty-three. In such a multiplication of offenses
all principle was ignored; offenses wholly different in
character and degree were confounded in the indiscriminating
penalty of death. Whenever an offense was found to be
increasing, some busy senator called for new rigor, until
murder became in the eye of the law no greater crime than
picking a pocket, purloining a ribbon from a shop, or
pilfering a pewter-pot. Such law-makers were as ignorant as
they were cruel. … Dr. Johnson,—no squeamish
moralist,—exposed them; Sir W. Blackstone, in whom admiration
of our jurisprudence was almost a foible, denounced them.
Beccaria, Montesquieu, and Bentham demonstrated that certainty
of punishment was more effectual in the repression of crime,
than severity; but law-givers were still inexorable."
T. E. May,
Constitutional History of England
(Widdleton's edition),
volume 2, pages 553-554.
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1695.
Counsel allowed to Persons indicted for High Treason.
"Holland, following the early example of Spain, always
permitted a prisoner the services of a counsel; and if he was
too poor to defray the cost, one was furnished at the public
charge. In England, until after the fall of the Stuarts, this
right, except for the purposes of arguing mere questions of
law, was denied to every one placed on trial for his life. In
1695, it was finally accorded to persons indicted for high
treason. Even then it is doubtful, says Lord Campbell, whether
a bill for this purpose would have passed if Lord Ashley,
afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury and author of the
'Characteristics,' had not broken down while delivering in the
House of Commons a set speech upon it, and, being called upon
to go on, had not electrified the House by observing: 'If I,
sir, who rise only to give my opinion upon a bill now pending,
in the fate of which I have no personal interest, am so
confounded that I am unable to express the least of what I
propose to say, what must the condition of that man be, who,
without any assistance, is called to plead for his life, his
honor, and for his posterity?'"
D. Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
volume 2, page 446.
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1708.
Torture.
The fact that judicial torture, though not a common law power
of the courts, was used in England by command of Mary,
Elizabeth, James I and Charles I, is familiar to all. It was
sanctioned by Lord Coke and Lord Bacon, and Coke himself
conducted examinations by it. It was first made illegal in
Scotland in 1708; in Bavaria and Wurtemburg in 1806; in Baden
in 1831.
Austin Abbott,
Address before New York Society of Medicine Journal,
(The Advocate, Minn., 1889, volume 1, page 71).
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1725.
Knowledge of Right and Wrong the test of Responsibility.
The case of Edward Arnold, in 1725, who was indicted for
shooting at Lord Onslow, seems to be the earliest case in
which the knowledge of right and wrong becomes the test of
responsibility.
American Law Review,
volume 15, pages 720-722.
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1770.
Criminal Law of Libel.
"In this case [Case of the North Briton Junius' Letter to the
King, tried before Lord Mansfield and a special jury on the
2nd June 1770] two doctrines were maintained which excepted
libels from the general principles of the Criminal
Law—firstly, that a publisher was criminally responsible for
the acts of his servants, unless he was proved to be neither
privy nor to have assented to the publication of a libel;
secondly, that it was the province of the Court alone to judge
of the criminality of the publication complained of. The first
rule was rigidly observed in the Courts until the passing of
Lord Campbell's Libel Act in 1843 (6 and 7 Vict., c. 96). The
second prevailed only until 1792, when Fox's Libel Act (32
Geo. III, c. 60) declared it to be contrary to the Law of
England. …
{1985}
A century's experience has proved that the law, as declared by
the Legislature in 1792, has worked well, falsifying the
forebodings of the Judges of the period, who predicted 'the
confusion and destruction of the Law of England' as the result
of a change which they regarded as the subversion of a
fundamental and important principle of English Jurisprudence.
Fox's Libel Act did not complete the emancipation of the
Press. Liberty of discussion continued to be restrained by
merciless persecution. The case of Sir Francis Burdett, in
1820, deserves notice. Sir Francis had written, on the subject
of the 'Peterloo Massacre' in Manchester, a letter which was
published in a London newspaper. He was fined £2,000 and
sentenced to imprisonment for three months. The proceedings on
a motion for a new trial are of importance because of the
Judicial interpretation of the Libel Act of 1792. The view was
then stated by Best, J. (afterwards Lord Wynford), and was
adopted unanimously by the Court, that the statute of George
III. had not made the question of libel one of fact. If it
had, instead of removing an anomaly, it would have created
one. Libel, said Best, J., is a question of law, and the judge
is the judge of the law in libel as in all other cases, the
jury having the power of acting agreeably to his statement of
the law or not. All that the statute does is to prevent the
question from being left to the jury in the narrow way in
which it was left before that time. The jury were then only to
find the fact of the publication and the truth of the
innuendoes, for the judges used to tell them that the intent
was an inference of law to be drawn from the paper, with which
the jury had nothing to do. The legislature have said that
this is not so, but that the whole case is for the jury (4 B.
and A. 95). The law relating to Political Libel has not been
developed or altered in any way since the case of R. v.
Burdett. If it should ever be revived, which does not at
present appear probable, it will be found, says Sir James
Stephen, to have been insensibly modified by the law as to
defamatory libels on private persons, which has been the
subject of a great number of highly important judicial
decisions. The effect of these is, amongst other things, to
give a right to everyone to criticise fairly—that is,
honestly, even if mistakenly—the public conduct of public
men, and to comment honestly, even if mistakenly, upon the
proceedings of Parliament and the Courts of Justice. (History
of the Criminal Law, II., 376.) The unsuccessful prosecution
of Cobbett for an article in the 'Political Register,' in
1831, nearly brought to a close the long series of contests
between the Executive and the Press. From the period of the
Reform Act of 1832, the utmost latitude has been permitted to
public writings, and Press prosecutions for political libels,
like the Censorship, have lapsed."
J. W. Ross Brown,
Law Magazine & Review,
4th ser., volume 17, page 197.
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1791.
Criminals allowed Counsel.
"When the American States adopted their first constitutions,
five of them contained a provision that every person accused
of crime was to be allowed counsel for his defence. The same
right was, in 1791, granted for all America in the first
amendments to the Constitution of the United States. This
would seem to be an elementary principle of justice, but it
was not adopted in England until nearly half a century later,
and then only after a bitter struggle."
D. Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
volume 1, page 70.
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1818.
Last Trial by Battle.
"The last appeal of murder brought in England was the case of
Ashford v. Thornton in 1818. In that case, after Thornton had
been tried and acquitted of the murder of Mary Ashford at the
Warwick Assizes her brother charged him in the court of king's
bench with her murder, according to the forms of the ancient
procedure. The court admitted the legality of the proceedings,
and recognized the appellee's right to wage his body; but as
the appellant was not prepared to fight, the case ended upon a
plea of autrefois acquit interposed by Thornton when arraigned
on the appeal. This proceeding led to the statute of 59 Geo.
III., c. 46, by which all appeals in criminal cases were
finally abolished."
Hannis Taylor,
Origin and Growth of the English Constitution,
part 1, page 311.
See, also, WAGER OF BATTLE.
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D: 1819.
Severity of the former Criminal Law of England.
"Sir James Mackintosh in 1819, in moving in Parliament for a
committee to inquire into the conditions of the criminal law,
stated that there were then 'two hundred capital felonies on
the statute book.' Undoubtedly this apparent severity, for the
reasons stated by Sir James Stephen, is greater than the real
severity, since many of the offenses made capital were of
infrequent occurrence; and juries, moreover, often refused to
convict, and persons capitally convicted for offenses of minor
degrees of guilt were usually pardoned on condition of
transportation to the American and afterwards to the
Australian colonies. But this learned author admits that,
'after making all deductions on these grounds there can be no
doubt that the legislation of the eighteenth century in
criminal matters was severe to the highest degree, and
destitute of any sort of principle or system.'"
J. F. Dillon,
Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America,
page 366.
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1825.
"Ticket-of-leave" system established.
"The 'ticket-of-leave' system [was] established under the
English laws of penal servitude. It originated under the
authority of the governors of the penal colonies, and was the
first sanctioned by Parliament, so far as the committee are
aware, by an Act 5 Geo. IV., chapter 34. Subsequently, when
transportation for crime was abolished by the Acts 16, 17
Vict., chapter 99 (A. D. 1853) and 20, 21 Vict., chapter 3,
and system of home prisons established, the 'license' or
ticket-of-leave system was adopted by Parliament, in those
acts, as a method of rewarding convicts for good conduct
during imprisonment. By further acts passed in 1864, 1871 and
1879, the system has been brought gradually into its present
efficacy."
Report of Committee on Judicial Administration,
and Remedial Procedure
(9 American Bar Association Report, 317).
{1986}
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1832-1860.
Revision of Criminal Code in England.
"With the reform period commenced a new era in criminal
legislation. Ministers and law officers now vied with
philanthropists, in undoing the unhallowed work of many
generations. In 1832, Lord Auckland, Master of the Mint,
secured the abolition of capital punishment for offences

connected with coinage; Mr. Attorney-general Denman exempted
forgery from the same penalty in all but two cases, to which
the Lords would not assent; and Mr. Ewart obtained the like
remission for sheep-stealing, and other similar offences. In
1833, the Criminal Law Commission was appointed, to revise the
entire code. … The commissioners recommended numerous other
remissions, which were promptly carried into effect by Lord
John Russell in 1837. Even these remissions, however, fell
short of public opinion, which found expression in an
amendment of Mr. Ewart, for limiting the punishment of death
to the single crime of murder. This proposal was then lost by
a majority of one; but has since, by successive measures, been
accepted by the legislature;—murder alone, and the
exceptional crime of treason, having been reserved for the
last penalty of the law. Great indeed, and rapid, was this
reformation of the criminal code. It was computed that, from
1810 to 1845, upwards of 1,400 persons had suffered death for
crimes, which had since ceased to be capital."
T. E. May,
Constitutional History of England
(Widdleton's edition),
volume 2, pages 557-558.
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1843.
Lord Campbell's Libel Act, and Publisher's Liability.
"In the 'Morning Advertiser' of the 19th of December, 1769,
appeared Junius's celebrated letter to the king. Inflammatory
and seditious, it could not be overlooked; and as the author
was unknown, informations were immediately filed against the
printers and publishers of the letter. But before they were
brought to trial, Almon, the bookseller, was tried for selling
the 'London Museum,' in which the libel was reprinted. His
connection with the publication proved to be so slight that he
escaped with a nominal punishment. Two doctrines, however,
were maintained in this case, which excepted libels from the
general principles of the criminal law. By the first, a
publisher was held criminally answerable for the acts of his
servants, unless proved to be neither privy nor assenting to
the publication of a libel. So long as exculpatory evidence
was admitted, this doctrine was defensible; but judges
afterwards refused to admit such evidence, holding that the
publication of a libel by a publisher's servant was proof of
his criminality. And this monstrous rule of law prevailed
until 1843, when it was condemned by Lord Campbell's Libel
Act."
T. E. May,
Constitutional History of England
(Widdleton's edition),
volume 2, pages 113-114.
"And be it enacted, that whensoever, upon the trial of any
indictment or information for the publication of a libel,
under the plea of not guilty, evidence shall have been given
which shall establish a presumptive case of publication
against the defendant by the act of any other person by his
authority, it shall be competent to such defendant to prove
that such publication was made without his authority, consent,
or knowledge, and that the said publication did not arise from
want of due care or caution on his part."
Statute 6 & 7 Vic., c. 96, s. 7.
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1848.
The English Court of Criminal Appeal.
"England has not yet got her court of Criminal Appeal,
although the Council of Judges, in their belated scheme of
legal reform, recommend the legislature to create one.
Questions whether an action should be dismissed as 'frivolous
or vexatious,' disputes about' security for costs,' and the
'sufficiency of interrogatories' or 'particulars,' and all
manner of trivial causes affecting property or status, are
deemed by the law of England sufficiently important to entitle
the parties to them, if dissatisfied with the finding of a
court of first instance, to submit it to the touchstone of an
appeal. But the lives and liberties of British subjects
charged with the commission of criminal offences are in
general disposed of irrevocably by the verdict of a jury,
guided by the directions of a trial judge. To this rule,
however, there are two leading exceptions. In the first place,
any convicted prisoner may petition the sovereign for a
pardon, or for the commutation of his sentence; and the royal
prerogative of mercy is exercised through, and on the advice
of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. In the
second place, the English machine juridical notwithstanding
its lack of a properly constituted Court of Criminal Appeal,
is furnished with a kind of 'mechanical equivalent' therefor,
in the 'Court for Crown Cases Reserved,' which was established
by act of Parliament in 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 78)."
The English Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Green Bag, volume 5, page 345).
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1854.
Conflict between United States Constitution and a Treaty.
"About 1854, M. Dillon, French consul at San Francisco,
refused to appear and testify in a criminal case. The
Constitution of the United States (Amendment VI.), in criminal
cases grants accused persons compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses, while our treaties of 1853, with France (Art. II.)
says that consuls 'shall never be compelled to appear as
witnesses before the courts.' Thus there was a conflict
between the Constitution and the treaty, and it was held that
the treaty was void. After a long correspondence the French
Consuls were directed to obey a subpoena in future."
Theodore D. Woolsey,
Introduction to the Study of International Law
[6th edition],
page 157, note.
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1877.
"Indeterminate Sentences."
"This practice, so far as the committee can ascertain, has
been adopted in the states of New York and Ohio only. … The
Ohio statute has been taken mainly from that which was adopted
in New York, April 12, 1877."
Report of Committee on Judicial Administrations, and
Remedial Procedure
(9 American Bar Association Report, page 313).
CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1893.
Criminal Jurisdiction of Federal Courts.
"The Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v.
Rodgers, … 150 U. S., … in declaring that the term 'high
seas' in the criminal law of the United States is applicable
as well to the open waters of the great lakes as to the open
waters of the ocean, may be said, in a just sense, not to have
changed the law, but to have asserted the law to be in force
upon a vast domain over which its jurisdiction was heretofore
in doubt. The opinion of Justice Field will take its place in
our jurisprudence in company with the great cases of the
Genesee Chief, 12 How. (U. S.), 443, and its successors, and
with them marks the self adapting capacity of the judicial
power to meet the great exigencies of justice and good
government."
University Law Review,
volume 1, page 2.
----------CRIMINAL LAW: End----------
----------ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: Start--------
{1987}
ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 449-1066.
No distinction between Lay and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.
"In the time of our Saxon ancestors, there was no sort of
distinction between the lay and the ecclesiastical
jurisdiction: the county court was as much a spiritual as a
temporal tribunal; the rights of the church were ascertained
and asserted at the same time, and by the same judges, as the
rights of the laity. For this purpose the bishop of the
diocese, and the alderman, or, in his absence, the sheriff of
the county, used to sit together in the county court, and had
there the cognizance of all causes, as well ecclesiastical as
civil: a superior deference being paid to the bishop's opinion
in spiritual matters, and to that of the lay judges in temporal.
W. Blackstone,
Commentaries,
book 3, page 61.
ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1066-1087.
Separation of Ecclesiastical from Civil Courts.
"William I. (whose title was warmly espoused by the
monasteries, which he liberally endowed, and by the foreign
clergy whom he brought over in shoals from France and Italy,
and planted in the best preferments of the English church),
was at length prevailed upon to … separate the
ecclesiastical court from the civil: whether actuated by
principles of bigotry, or by those of a more refined policy,
in order to discountenance the laws of King Edward, abounding
with the spirit of Saxon liberty, is not altogether certain.
But the latter, if not the cause, was undoubtedly the
consequence, of this separation: for the Saxon laws were soon
overborne by the Norman justiciaries, when the county court
fell into disregard by the bishop's withdrawing his presence,
in obedience to the charter of the conqueror; which prohibited
any spiritual cause from being tried in the secular courts,
and commanded the suitors to appear before the bishop only,
whose decisions were directed to conform to the canon law."
W. Blackstone,
Commentaries,
book 3, pages 62-63.
"The most important ecclesiastical measure of the reign, the
separation of the church jurisdiction from the secular
business of the courts of law, is unfortunately, like all
other charters of the time, undated. Its contents however show
the influence of the ideas which under the genius of
Hildebrand were forming the character of the continental
churches. From henceforth the bishops and archdeacons are no
longer to hold ecclesiastical pleas in the hundred-court, but
to have courts of their own; to try causes by canonical, not
by customary law, and allow no spiritual questions to come
before laymen as judges. In case of contumacy the offender may
be excommunicated and the king and sheriff will enforce the
punishment. In the same way laymen are forbidden to interfere
in spiritual causes. The reform is one which might very
naturally recommend itself to a man like Lanfranc."
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
volume 1, section 101.
ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1100.
Reunion of Civil and Ecclesiastical Courts.
"King Henry the First, at his accession, among other
restorations of the laws of King Edward the Confessor, revived
this of the union of the civil and ecclesiastical courts. …
This, however, was ill-relished by the popish clergy,… and,
therefore, in their synod at Westminster, 3 Hen. I., they
ordained that no bishop should attend the discussion of
temporal causes; which soon dissolved this newly effected
union."
W. Blackstone,
Commentaries, book 3, page 63.
ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1135.
Final Separation of Civil and Ecclesiastical Courts.
"And when, upon the death of King Henry the First, the usurper
Stephen was brought in and supported by the clergy, we find
one article of the oath which they imposed upon him was, that
ecclesiastical persons and ecclesiastical causes should be
subject only to the bishop's jurisdiction. And as it was about
that time that the contest and emulation began between the
laws of England and those of Rome, the temporal courts
adhering to the former, and the spiritual adopting the latter
as their rule of proceeding, this widened the breach between
them, and made a coalition afterwards impracticable; which
probably would else have been effected at the general
reformation of the church."
W. Blackstone,
Commentaries,
book 3, page 64.
ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1285.
Temporal Courts assume Jurisdiction of Defamation.
"To the Spiritual Court appears also to have belonged the
punishment of defamation until the rise of actions on the
case, when the temporal courts assumed jurisdiction, though
not, it seems, to the exclusion of punishment by the church.
The punishment of usurers, cleric and lay, also belonged to
the ecclesiastical judges, though their movables were
confiscated to the king, unless the usurer 'vita comite digne
poenituerit, et testamento condito quae legare decreverit a se
prorsus alienaverit.' That is, it seems, the personal
punishment was inflicted by the Ecclesiastical Court, but the
confiscation of goods (when proper) was decreed by the King's
Court."
Melville M. Bigelow,
History of Procedure,
page 51.
ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1857-1859.
Ecclesiastical Courts deprived of Matrimonial and Testamentary
Causes.
"Matrimonial causes, or injuries respecting the rights of
marriage, are another … branch of the ecclesiastical
jurisdiction. Though, if we consider marriages in the light of
mere civil contracts, they do not seem to be properly of
spiritual cognizance. But the Romanists having very early
converted this contract into a holy sacramental ordinance, the
church of course took it under her protection,' upon the
division of the two jurisdictions. … One might … wonder,
that the same authority, which enjoined the strictest celibacy
to the priesthood, should think them the proper judges in
causes between man and wife. These causes, indeed, partly from
the nature of the injuries complained of, and partly from the
clerical method of treating them, soon became too gross for
the modesty of a lay tribunal. … Spiritual jurisdiction of
testamentary causes is a peculiar constitution of this island;
for in almost all other (even in popish) countries all matters
testamentary are under the jurisdiction of the civil
magistrate. And that this privilege is enjoyed by the clergy
in England, not as a matter of ecclesiastical right, but by
the special favor and indulgence of the municipal law, and as
it should seem by some public act of the great council, is
freely acknowledged by Lindewode, the ablest canonist of the
fifteenth century. Testamentary causes, he observes, belong to
the ecclesiastical courts 'de consuetudine Angliae, et super
consensu regio et suorum procerum in talibus ab antiquo
concesso.'"
W. Blackstone,
Commentaries,
book 3, pages 91-95.
{1988}
Jurisdiction in testamentary causes was taken away from the
ecclesiastical courts by Statutes 20 and 21 Vic., c. 77 and 21
and 22 Vic., chapters 56 and 95, and was transferred to the
court of Probate. Jurisdiction in matrimonial causes was
transferred to the Divorce Court by Statute 20 and 21 Vic., 85.
----------ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: End--------
----------EQUITY: Start--------
Equity.
EQUITY: A. D. 449-1066.
Early Masters in Chancery.
"As we approach the era of the Conquest, we find distinct
traces of the Masters in Chancery, who, though in sacred
orders, were well trained in jurisprudence, and assisted the
chancellor in preparing writs and grants, as well as in the
service of the royal chapel. They formed a sort of college of
justice, of which he was the head. They all sate in the
Wittenagemote, and, as 'Law Lords', are supposed to have had
great weight in the deliberations of that assembly."
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Chancellors,
volume 1, page 53.
EQUITY: A. D. 596.
Chancellor, Keeper of the Great Seal.
"From the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity by
the preaching of St. Augustine, the King always had near his
person a priest, to whom was entrusted the care of his chapel,
and who was his confessor. This person, selected from the most
learned and able of his order, and greatly superior in
accomplishments to the unlettered laymen attending the Court,
soon acted as private secretary to the King, and gained his
confidence in affairs of state. The present demarcation
between civil and ecclesiastical employments was then little
regarded, and to this same person was assigned the business of
superintending writs and grants, with the custody of the great
seal."
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Chancellors,
volume 1, page 27.
EQUITY: A. D. 1066.
Master of the Rolls.
"The office of master, formerly called the Clerk or Keeper of
the Rolls, is recognized at this early period, though at this
time he appears to have been the Chancellor's deputy, not an
independent officer."
Geo. Spence,
Equity Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery,
volume 1, page 100.
EQUITY: A. D. 1066-1154.
Chancellor as Secretary of State.
Under the Norman Kings, the Chancellor was a kind of secretary
of state. His functions were political rather than judicial.
He attended to the royal correspondence, kept the royal
accounts, and drew up writs for the administration of justice.
He was also the keeper of the seal.
Montague's Elements of Constitutional History of England,
page 27.
See, also, CHANCELLOR.
A. D. 1067.
First Lord Chancellor.
"The first keeper of the seals who was endowed with the title
of Lord Chancellor was Maurice, who received the great seal in
1067. The incumbents of the office were for a long period
ecclesiastics; and they usually enjoyed episcopal or
archiepiscopal rank, and lived in the London palaces attached
to their sees or provinces. The first Keeper of the seals of
England was Fitzgilbert, appointed by Queen Matilda soon after
her coronation, and there was no other layman appointed until
the reign of Edward III."
L. J. Bigelow,
Bench and Bar,
page 23.
EQUITY: A. D. 1169.
Uses and Trusts.
"According to the law of England, trusts may be created 'inter
vivos' as well as by testament, and their history is a curious
one, beginning, like that of the Roman 'fidei commissa,' with
an attempt to evade the law. The Statutes of Mortmain, passed
to prevent the alienation of lands to religious houses, led to
the introduction of 'uses,' by which the grantor alienated his
land to a friend to hold 'to the use' of a monastery, the
clerical chancellors giving legal validity to the wish thus
expressed. Although this particular device was put a stop to
by 15 Ric. II. c. 5, 'uses' continued to be employed for other
purposes, having been found more malleable than what was
called, by way of contrast, 'the legal estate.' They offered
indeed so many modes of escaping the rigour of the law, that,
after several other statutes had been passed with a view of
curtailing their advantages, the 27 Hen. VIII. c. 10 enacted
that, where anyone was seised to a use, the legal estate
should be deemed to be in him to whose use he was seised. The
statute did not apply to trusts of personal property, nor to
trusts of land where any active duty was cast upon the
trustee, nor where a use was limited 'upon a use,' i. e. where
the person in whose favour a use was created was himself to
hold the estate to the use of some one else. There continued
therefore to be a number of cases in which, in spite of the
'Statute of Uses,' the Court of Chancery was able to carry out
its policy of enforcing what had otherwise been merely moral
duties. The system thus arising has grown to enormous
dimensions, and trusts, which, according to the definition of
Lord Hardwicke, are 'such a confidence between parties that no
action at law will lie, but there is merely a case for the
consideration of courts of equity,' are inserted not only in
wills, but also in marriage settlements, arrangements with
creditors, and numberless other instruments necessary for the
comfort of families and the development of commerce."
T. E. Holland,
Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,
page 217.
EQUITY: A. D. 1253.
A Lady Keeper of the Seals.
"Having occasion to cross the sea and visit Gascony, A. D.
1253, Henry III. made her [Queen Eleanor] keeper of the seal
during his absence, and in that character she in her own
person presided in the 'Aula Regia,' hearing causes, and, it
is to be feared, forming her decisions less in accordance with
justice than her own private interests. Never did judge set
law and equity more fearfully at naught."
L. J. Bigelow,
Bench and Bar,
page 28.
EQUITY: A. D. 1258.
No Writs except De Cursu.
"In the year 1258 the Provisions of Oxford were promulgated;
two separate clauses of which bound the chancellor to issue no
more writs except writs 'of course' without command of the
King and his Council present with him. This, with the growing
independence of the judiciary on the one hand, and the
settlement of legal process on the other, terminated the right
to issue special writs, and at last fixed the common writs in
unchangeable form; most of which had by this time become
developed into the final form in which for six centuries they
were treated as precedents of declaration."
M. M. Bigelow,
History of Procedure,
page 197.
EQUITY: A. D. 1272-1307.
The Chancellor's functions.
"In the reign of Edward I. the Chancellor begins to appear in
the three characters in which we now know him; as a great
political officer, as the head of a department for the issue
of writs and the custody of documents in which the King's
interest is concerned, as the administrator of the King's
grace."
Sir William H. Anson,
Law and Custom of the Constitution,
part 2, page 146.
{1989}
EQUITY: A. D. 1330.
Chancery stationary at Westminster.
"There was likewise introduced about this time a great
improvement in the administration of justice, by rendering the
Court of Chancery stationary at Westminster. The ancient kings
of England were constantly migrating,—one principal reason
for which was, that the same part of the country, even with
the aid of purveyance and pre-emption, could not long support
the court and all the royal retainers, and render in kind due
to the King could be best consumed on the spot. Therefore, if
he kept Christmas at Westminster, he would keep Easter at
Winchester, and Pentecost at Gloucester, visiting his many
palaces and manors in rotation. The Aula Regis, and afterwards
the courts into which it was partitioned, were ambulatory
along with him—to the great vexation of the suitors. This
grievance was partly corrected by Magna Charta, which enacted
that the Court of Common Pleas should be held 'in a certain
place,'—a corner of Westminster Hall being fixed upon for
that purpose. In point of law, the Court of King's Bench and
the Court of Chancery may still be held in any county of
England,—'wheresoever in England the King or the Chancellor
may be.' Down to the commencement of the reign of Edward III.,
the King's Bench and the Chancery actually had continued to
follow the King's person, the Chancellor and his officers
being entitled to part of the purveyance made for the royal
household. By 28 Edw. 1., c. 5, the Lord Chancellor and the
Justices of the King's Bench were ordered to follow the King,
so that he might have at all times near him sages of the law
able to order all matters which should come to the Court. But
the two Courts were now by the King's command fixed in the
places where, unless on a few extraordinary occasions, they
continued to be held down to our own times, at the upper end
of Westminster Hall, the King's Bench on the left hand, and
the Chancery on the right, both remaining open to the Hall,
and a bar erected to keep off the multitude from pressing on
the judges."
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Chancellors,
volume 1, page 181.
EQUITY: A. D. 1348.
"Matters of Grace" committed to the Chancellor.
"In the 22nd year of Edward III, matters which were of grace
were definitely committed to the Chancellor for decision, and
from this point there begins to develop that body of
rules—supplementing the deficiencies or correcting the
harshness of the Common Law—which we call Equity."
Sir W. R. Anson,
Law and Custom of the Constitution,
part 2, page 147.
ALSO IN:
Kerly's History of the Court of Chancery,
page 31.
EQUITY: A. D. 1383.
Early Instance of Subpoena.
"It is said that John Waltham, Bishop of Salisbury, who was
Keeper of the Rolls about the 5th of Richard II., considerably
enlarged this new jurisdiction; that, to give efficacy to it,
he invented, or more properly, was the first who adopted in
that court, the writ of subpoena, a process which had before
been used by the council, and is very plainly alluded to in
the statutes of the last reign, though not under that name.
This writ summoned the party to appear under a penalty, and
answer such things as should be objected against him; upon
this a petition was lodged, containing the articles of
complaint to which he was then compelled to answer. These
articles used to contain suggestions of injuries suffered, for
which no remedy was to be had in the courts of common law, and
therefore the complainant prayed advice and relief of the
chancellor."
J. Reeves,
History English Law (Finlason's edition),
volume 3, page 384.
EQUITY: A. D. 1394.
Chancery with its own Mode of Procedure.
"From the time of passing the stat. 17 Richard II. we may
consider that the Court of Chancery was established as a
distinct and permanent court, having separate jurisdiction,
with its own peculiar mode of procedure similar to that which
had prevailed in the Council, though perhaps it was not wholly
yet separated from the Council."
George Spence,
Equity Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery,
volume 1, page 345.
EQUITY: A. D. 1422.
Chancery Cases appear in Year Books.
"It is beyond a doubt that this [chancery] court had begun to
exercise its judicial authority in the reigns of Richard II.,
Henry IV. and V. … But we do not find in our books any
report of cases there determined till 37 Henry VI., except
only on the subject of uses; which, as has been before
remarked, might give rise to the opinion, that the first
equitable judicature was concerned in the support of uses."
J. Reeves,
History English Law (Finlason's edition),
volume 3, page 553.
EQUITY: A. D. 1443.
No distinction between Examination and Answer.
The earliest record of written answers is in 21 Henry VI.
Before that time little, if any, distinction was made
between the examination and the answer.
Kerly,
History of Courts of Chancery,
page 51.
EQUITY: A. D. 1461-1483.
Distinction between Proceeding by Bill and by Petition.
"A written statement of the grievance being required to be
filed before the issuing of the subpoena, with security to pay
damages and costs,—bills now acquired form, and the
distinction arose between the proceeding by bill and by
petition. The same regularity was observed in the subsequent
stages of the suit. Whereas formerly the defendant was
generally examined viva voce when he appeared in obedience to
the subpoena, the practice now was to put in a written answer,
commencing with a protestation against the truth or
sufficiency of the matters contained in the bill, stating the
facts relied upon by the defendant, and concluding with a
prayer that he may be dismissed, with his costs. There were
likewise, for the purpose of introducing new facts, special
replications and rejoinders, which continued till the reign of
Elizabeth, but which have been rendered unnecessary by the
modern practice of amending the bill and answer. Pleas and
demurrers now appear. Although the pleadings were in English,
the decrees on the bill continued to be in Latin down to the
reign of Henry VIII. Bills to perpetuate testimony, to set out
metes and bounds, and for injunctions against proceedings at
law, and to stay waste, became frequent."
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Chancellors,
volume 1, page 309.
{1990}
EQUITY: A. D. 1461-1483.
Jurisdiction of Chancery over Trusts.
"The equitable jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery may be
considered as making its greatest advances in this reign
[Edw. IV.]. The point was now settled, that there being a
feoffment to uses, the 'cestui que' use, or person
beneficially entitled, could maintain no action at law, the
Judges saying that he had neither 'jus in re' nor 'jus ad
rem,' and that their forms could not be moulded so as to
afford him any effectual relief, either as to the land or the
profits. The Chancellors, therefore, with general applause,
declared that they would proceed by subpoena against the
feoffee to compel him to perform a duty which in conscience
was binding upon him, and gradually extended the remedy
against his heir and against his alienee with notice of the
trust, although they held, as their successors have done, that
the purchaser of the legal estate for valuable consideration
without notice might retain the land for his own benefit. They
therefore now freely made decrees requiring the trustee to
convey according to the directions of the 'cestui que trust,'
or person beneficially interested; and the most important
branch of the equitable jurisdiction of the Court over trusts
was firmly and irrevocably established."
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Chancellors,
volume 1, page 309.
EQUITY: A. D. 1538.
Lord Keeper of the Great Seal.
"Between the death, resignation, or removal of one chancellor,
and the appointment of another, the Great Seal, instead of
remaining in the personal custody of the Sovereign, was
sometimes entrusted to a temporal keeper, either with limited
authority (as only to seal writs), or with all the powers,
though not with the rank of Chancellor. At last the practice
grew up of occasionally appointing a person to hold the Great
Seal with the title of 'Keeper,' where it was meant that he
should permanently hold it in his own right and discharge all
the duties belonging to it. Queen Elizabeth, ever sparing in
the conferring of dignities, having given the Great Seal with
the title of 'Keeper' to Sir Nicholas Bacon, objections were
made to the legality of some of his acts,—and to obviate
these, a statute was passed declaring that 'the Lord Keeper of
the Great Seal for the time being shall have the same place,
pre-eminence, and jurisdiction as the Lord Chancellor of
England.' Since then there never have been a Chancellor and
Keeper of the Great Seal concurrently, and the only difference
between the two titles is, that the one is more sounding than
the other, and is regarded as a higher mark of royal favor."
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Chancellors,
volume 1, page 40.
ALSO IN:
Sir W. R. Anson,
Law and Custom of the Constitution,
volume 2, page 150.
EQUITY: A. D. 1558.
Increase of Business in the Court of Chancery.
"The business of the Court of Chancery had now so much
increased that to dispose of it satisfactorily required a
Judge regularly trained to the profession of the law, and
willing to devote to it all his energy and industry. The
Statute of Wills, the Statute of Uses, the new modes of
conveyancing introduced for avoiding transmutation of
possession, the questions which arose respecting the property
of the dissolved monasteries, and the great increase of
commerce and wealth in the nation, brought such a number of
important suits into the Court of Chancery, that the holder of
the Great Seal could no longer satisfy the public by
occasionally stealing a few hours from his political
occupations, to dispose of bills and petitions, and not only
was his daily attendance demanded in Westminster Hall during
term time, but it was necessary that he should sit, for a
portion of each vacation, either at his own house, or in some
convenient place appointed by him for clearing off his
arrears."
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Chancellors,
volume 2, page 95.
EQUITY: A. D. 1567-1632.
Actions of Assumpsit in Equity.
"The late development of the implied contract to pay 'quantum
meruit,' and to indemnify a surety, would be the more
surprising, but for the fact that Equity gave relief to
tailors and the like, and to sureties long before the common
law held them. Spence, although at a loss to account for the
jurisdiction, mentions a suit brought in Chancery, in 1567, by
a tailor, to recover the amount due for clothes furnished. The
suit was referred to the Queen's tailor, to ascertain the
amount due, and upon his report a decree was made. The learned
writer adds that 'there were suits for wages and many others
of like nature.' A surety who had no counter-bond filed a bill
against his principal in 1632, in a case which would seem to
have been one of the earliest of the kind, for the reporter,
after stating that there was a decree for the plaintiff, adds
'quod nota.'"
J. B. Ames,
History of Assumpsit
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 2, pages 59-60).
EQUITY: A. D. 1592.
All Chancellors, save one, Lawyers.
"No regular judicial system at that time prevailed in the
court; but the suitor when he thought himself aggrieved, found
a desultory and uncertain remedy, according to the private
opinion of the chancellor, who was generally an ecclesiastic,
or sometimes (though rarely) a statesman: no lawyer having sat
in the court of chancery from the times of the chief justices
Thorpe and Knyvet, successively chancellors to King Edward
III. in 1372 and 1373, to the promotion of Sir Thomas More by
King Henry VIII., in 1530. After which the great seal was
indiscriminately committed to the custody of lawyers or
courtiers, or churchmen, according as the convenience of the
times and the disposition of the prince required, till
Sargeant Puckering was made lord keeper in 1592; from which
time to the present the court of chancery has always been
filled by a lawyer, excepting the interval from 1621 to 1625,
when the seal was entrusted to Dr. Williams, then dean of
Westminster, but afterwards bishop of Lincoln; who had been
chaplain to Lord Ellesmere when chancellor."
W. Blackstone,
Commentaries,
book 3, chapter 4.
EQUITY: A. D. 1595.
Injunctions against Suits at Law.
Opposition of common law courts.
"The strongest inclination was shown to maintain this
opposition to the court of equity, not only by the courts, but
by the legislature. The stat. 27 Elizabeth, c, l., which, in
very general words, restrains all application to other
jurisdictions to impeach or impede the execution of judgments
given in the king's courts, under penalty of a praemunire, has
been interpreted, as well as stat. Richard II., c. 5, not only
as imposing a restraint upon popish claims of judicature, but
also of the equitable jurisdiction in Chancery; and in the
thirty-first and thirty-second years of this reign, a
counsellor-at-law was indicted in the King's Bench on the
statute of praemunire, for exhibiting a bill in Chancery after
judgment had gone against his client in the King's Bench.
Under this and the like control, the Court of Chancery still
continued to extend its authority, supported, in some degree,
by the momentum it acquired in the time of Cardinal Wolsey."
J. Reeves,
History English Law (Finlason's edition.),
volume 5, pages 386-387.
{1991}
EQUITY: A. D. 1596.
Lord Ellesmere and his Decisions.
Kerly says the earliest chancellors' decisions that have come
down to us are those of Lord Ellesmere. He was the first
chancellor to establish equity upon the basis of precedents.
But compare Reeves (Finlason's), History English Law, volume
3, page 553, who mentions decisions in the Year Books.
Kerly,
History of the Court of Chancery,
page 98.
EQUITY: A. D. 1601.
Cy Pres Doctrine.
"There is no trace of the doctrine being put into practice in
England before the Reformation, although in the earliest
reported cases where it has been applied it is treated as a
well recognized rule, and as one owing its origin to the
traditional favour with which charities had always been
regarded. Much of the obscurity which covers the introduction
of the doctrine into our Law may perhaps be explained by the
fact that, in the earliest times, purely charitable gifts, as
they would now be understood, were almost unknown. The piety
of donors was most generally displayed in gifts to religious
houses, and the application of the subject matter of such
gifts was exclusively in the Superiors of the different
Orders, and entirely exempt from secular control. From the
religious houses the administration of charitable gifts passed
to the Chancellor, as keeper of the King's conscience, the
latter having as 'parens patriae' the general superintendence
of all infants, idiots, lunatics and charities. And it was not
until some time later that this jurisdiction became gradually
merged, and then only in cases where trusts were interposed,
in the general jurisdiction of the Chancery Courts. It is not
necessary to go into the long vexed question as to when that
actually took place. It is enough to say that it is now pretty
conclusively established that the jurisdiction of the Chancery
Courts over charitable trusts existed anterior to, and
independently of, the Statute of Charitable Uses, 43 Eliz., c.
4. As charitable gifts generally involved the existence of a
trust reposed in some one, it was natural that the Chancery
Court, which assumed jurisdiction over trusts, should have
gradually extended that jurisdiction over charities generally;
but the origin of the power, that it was one delegated by the
Crown to the Chancellor, must not be lost sight of, as in this
way, probably, can be best explained the curious distinct
jurisdictions vested in the Crown and the Chancery Courts
respectively to apply gifts Cy pres, the limits of which,
though long uncertain, were finally determined by Lord Eldon
in the celebrated case of Moggridge v. Thackwell, 7 ves. 69.
If we remember that the original jurisdiction in all
charitable matters was in the Crown, and that even after the
Chancery Courts acquired a jurisdiction over trusts, there was
still a class of cases untouched by such jurisdiction, we
shall better understand how the prerogative of the Crown still
remained in a certain class of cases, as we shall see
hereafter. However this may be, there is no doubt that when
the Chancery Courts obtained the jurisdiction over the
charities, which they have never lost, the liberal principles
of the Civil or Canon Law as to the carrying out of such gifts
were the sources and inspirations of their decisions. And
hence the Cy pres doctrine became gradually well recognised,
though the mode of its application has varied from time to
time. Perhaps the most striking instances of this liberal
construction are to be found in the series of cases which, by
a very strained interpretation of the Statute of Elizabeth
with regard to charitable uses, decided that gifts to such
uses in favour of corporations, which could not take by devise
under the old Wills Act, 32 Hen. VIII., c. 1, were good as
operating in the nature of an appointment of the trust in
equity, and that the intendment of the statute being in favour
of charitable gifts, all deficiencies of assurance were to be
supplied by the Courts. Although, historically, there may be
no connection between the power of the King over the
administration of charities, and the dispensing power reserved
to him by the earlier Mortmain Acts, the one being, as we have
seen, a right of Prerogative, the other a Feudal right in his
capacity as ultimate Lord of the fee, it is perhaps not wholly
out of place to allude shortly to the latter, particularly as
the two appear not to have been kept distinct in later times.
By the earlier Mortmain Acts, the dispensing power of the
King, as Lord Paramount, to waive forfeitures under these Acts
was recognised, and gifts of land to religious or charitable
corporations were made not 'ipso facto' void, but only
voidable at the instance of the immediate Lord, or, on his
default, of the King and after the statute 'quia emptores,'
which practically abolished mesne seignories, the Royal
license became in most cases sufficient to secure the validity
of the gift. The power of suspending statutes being declared
illegal at the Revolution, it was deemed prudent, seeing that
the grant of licenses in Mortmain imported an exercise of such
suspending power, to give these licenses a Parliamentary
sanction; and accordingly, by 7 and 8 William III., c. 37, it
was declared that the King might grant licenses to aliens in
Mortmain, and also to purchase, acquire, and hold lands in
Mortmain in perpetuity without pain of forfeiture. The right
of the mesne lord was thus passed over, and the dispensing
power of the Crown, from being originally a Feudal right,
became converted practically into one of Prerogative. The
celebrated Statute of 1 Edward VI., c. 14, against
superstitious uses, which is perhaps the earliest statutory
recognition of the Cy pres doctrine, points also strongly to
the original jurisdiction in these matters being in the King."
The author proceeds to trace at some length the subsequent
developments of the doctrine both judicial and statutory. The
doctrine is not generally recognised in the United States.
H. L. Manby
in Law Magazine & Review, 4th ser.,
volume 15 (London, 1889-90), page 203.
EQUITY: A. D. 1603-1625.
Equity and the Construction of Wills.
"After a violent struggle between Lord Coke and Lord
Ellesmere, the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery to stay
by injunction execution on judgments at law was finally
established. In this reign [James I.] the Court made another
attempt,—which was speedily abandoned,—to determine upon the
validity of wills,—and it has been long settled that the
validity of wills of real property shall be referred to courts
of law, and the validity of wills of personal property to the
Ecclesiastical Courts,—equity only putting a construction
upon them when their validity has been established."
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Chancellors,
volume 2, page 386.
EQUITY: A. D. 1612.
Right of Redemption.
The right to redeem after the day dates from the reign of
James I. From the time of Edward IV. (1461-83) a mortgagor
could redeem after the day if accident, or a collateral
agreement, or fraud by mortgagee, prevented payment.
Kerly,
History of the Court of Chancery,
page 143.
{1992}
EQUITY: A. D. 1616.
Contest between Equity and Common-Law Courts.
"In the time of Lord Ellesmere (A. D. 1616) arose that notable
dispute between the courts of law and equity, set on foot by
Sir Edward Coke, then chief justice of the court of king's
bench; whether a court of equity could give relief after or
against a judgment at the common law? This contest was so
warmly carried on, that indictments were preferred against the
suitors, the solicitors, the counsel, and even a master in
chancery, for having incurred a 'praemunire,' by questioning
in a court of equity a judgment in the court of king's bench,
obtained by a gross fraud and imposition. This matter being
brought before the king, was by him referred to his learned
counsel for their advice and opinion; who reported so strongly
in favor of the courts of equity, that his majesty gave
judgment in their behalf."
W. Blackstone,
Commentaries,
book 3, page 54.
EQUITY: A. D. 1616.
Relief against judgments at law.
"This was in 1616, the year of the memorable contest between
Lord Coke and Lord Ellesmere as to the power of equity to
restrain the execution of common-law judgment obtained by
fraud. … The right of equity to enforce specific
performance, where damages at law would be an inadequate
remedy, has never since been questioned."
J. B. Ames,
Specific Performance of Contracts
(The Green Bag, volume 1, page 27).
EQUITY: A. D. 1671.
The Doctrine of Tacking established.
"It is the established doctrine in the English law, that if
there be three mortgages in succession, and all duly
registered, or a mortgage, and then a judgment, and then a
second mortgage upon the estate, the junior mortgagee may
purchase in the first mortgage, and tack it to his mortgage,
and by that contrivance 'squeeze out' the middle mortgage, and
gain preference over it. The same rule would apply if the
first, as well as the second incumbrance, was a judgment; but
the incumbrancer who tacks must always be a mortgagee, for he
stands in the light of a bona fide purchaser, parting with his
money upon the security of the mortgage. … In the English
law, the rule is under some reasonable qualification. The last
mortgagee cannot tack, if, when he took his mortgage, he had
notice in fact … of the intervening incumbrance. … The
English doctrine of tacking was first solemnly established in
Marsh v. Lee [2 Vent. 337], under the assistance of Sir
Matthew Hale, who compared the operation to a plank in
shipwreck gained by the last mortgagee; and the subject was
afterwards very fully and accurately expounded by the Master
of the Rolls, in Brace v. Duchess of Marlborough [2 P. Wms.
491]."
J. Kent,
Commentaries,
part 6, lecture 58.
EQUITY: A. D. 1702-1714.
Equitable conversion.
"He [Lord Harcourt] first established the important doctrine,
that if money is directed either by deed or will to be laid
out in land, the money shall be taken to be land, even as to
collateral heirs."
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Chancellors,
volume 4, page 374.
EQUITY: A. D. 1736-1756.
Lord Hardwicke developed System of Precedents.
It was under Lord Hardwicke that the jurisdiction of Equity
was fully developed. During the twenty years of his
chancellorship the great branches of equitable jurisdiction
were laid out, and his decisions were regularly cited as
authority until after Lord Eldon's time.
Kerly,
History of the Court of Chancery,
pages 175-177.
EQUITY: A. D. 1742.
Control of Corporations.
"That the directors of a corporation shall manage its affairs
honestly and carefully is primarily a right of the corporation
itself rather than of the individual stockholders. … The
only authority before the present century is the case of the
Charitable Corporation v. Sutton, decided by Lord Hardwicke [2
Atk. 400]. But this case is the basis … of all subsequent
decisions on the point, and it is still quoted as containing
an accurate exposition of the law. The corporation was
charitable only in name, being a joint-stock corporation for
lending money on pledges. By the fraud of some of the
directors … , and by the negligence of the rest, loans were
made without proper security. The bill was against the
directors and other officers, 'to have a satisfaction for a
breach of trust, fraud, and mismanagement.' Lord Hardwicke
granted the relief prayed, and a part of his decision is well
worth quoting. He says: 'Committee-men are most properly
agents to those who employ them in this trust, and who empower
them to direct and superintend the affairs of the corporation.
In this respect they may be guilty of acts of commission or
omission, of malfeasance or nonfeasance. … Nor will I ever
determine that a court of equity cannot lay hold of every
breach of trust, let the person be guilty of it either in a
private or public capacity.'"
S. Williston,
History of the Law of Business
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 2, page 158-159).
EQUITY: A. D. 1782.
Demurrer to Bill of Discovery.
"Originally, it appears not to have been contemplated that a
demurrer or plea would lie to a bill for discovery, unless it
were a demurrer or plea to the nature of the discovery sought
or to the jurisdiction of the court, e. g., a plea of purchase
for value; and, though it was a result of this doctrine that
plaintiffs might compel discovery to which they were not
entitled, it seems to have been supposed that they were not
likely to do so to any injurious effect, since they must do it
at their own expense. But this view was afterwards abandoned,
and in 1782 it was decided that, if a bill of discovery in aid
of an action at law stated no good cause of action against the
defendant, it might be demurred to on that ground, i. e., that
it showed on its face no right to relief at law, and,
therefore, no right to discovery in equity. Three years later
in Hindman v. Taylor, the question was raised whether a
defendant could protect himself for answering a bill for
discovery by setting up an affirmative defence by plea; and,
though Lord Thurlow decided the question in the negative, his
decision has since been overruled; and it is now fully settled
that any defence may be set up to a bill for discovery by
demurrer or plea, the same as to a bill for relief; and, if
successful, it will protect the defendant from answering."
C. C. Langdell,
Summary of Equity Pleading,
pages 204-205.
{1993}
EQUITY: A. D. 1786.
Injunction after Decree to pay Proceeds of Estate into Court.
"As soon as a decree is made … , under which the executor
will be required to pay the proceeds of the whole estate into
court, an injunction ought to be granted against the
enforcement of any claim against the estate by an action at
law; and accordingly such has been the established rule for
more than a hundred years. … The first injunction that was
granted expressly upon the ground above explained was that
granted by Lord Thurlow, in 1782, in the case of Brooks v.
Reynolds. … In the subsequent case of Kenyon v. Worthington,
… an application to Lord Thurlow for an injunction was
resisted by counsel of the greatest eminence. The resistance,
however, was unsuccessful, and the injunction was granted.
This was in 1786; and from that time the question was regarded
as settled."
C. C. Langdell,
Equity Jurisdiction
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 5, pages 122-123).
EQUITY: A. D. 1792.
Negative Pleas.
"In Gun v. Prior, Forrest, 88, note, 1 Cox, 197, 2 Dickens,
657, Cas. in Eq. Pl. 47, a negative plea was overruled by Lord
Thurlow after a full argument. This was in 1785. Two years
later, the question came before the same judge again, and,
after another full argument, was decided the same way. Newman
v. Wallis, 2 Bro. C. C. 143, Cas. in Eq. Pl. 52. But in 1792,
in the case of Hall v. Noyes, 3 Bro. C. C. 483, 489, Cas. in
Eq. Pl. 223, 227, Lord Thurlow took occasion to say that he
had changed his opinion upon the subject of negative pleas,
and that his former decisions were wrong; and since then the
right to plead a negative plea has not been questioned."
C. C. Langdell,
Summary of Equity Pleading,
p. 114, note.
EQUITY: A. D. 1801-1827.
Lord Eldon settled Rules of Equity.
"'The doctrine of this Court,' he [Lord Eldon] said himself,
'ought to be as well settled and as uniform, almost, as those
of the common law, laying down fixed principles, but taking
care that they are to be applied according to the
circumstances of each case. I cannot agree that the doctrines
of this Court are to be changed by every succeeding judge.
Nothing would inflict on me greater pain than the recollection
that I had done any thing to justify the reproach that the
Equity of this Court varies like the Chancellor's foot.'
Certainly the reproach he dreaded cannot justly be inflicted
upon his memory. … From his time onward the development of
equity was effected ostensibly, and, in the great majority of
cases, actually, by strict deduction from the principles to be
discovered in decided cases, and the work of subsequent
Chancery judges has been, for the most part, confined, as Lord
Eldon's was, to tracing out these principles into detail, and
to rationalising them by repeated review and definition."
D. M. Kerly,
History Court Chancery,
page 182.
EQUITY: A. D. 1812.
Judge Story.
"We are next to regard Story during his thirty-five years of
judicial service. He performed an amount of judicial labor
almost without parallel, either in quality or quantity, in the
history of jurisprudence. His judgments in the Circuit Court
comprehended thirteen volumes. His opinions in the Supreme
Court are found in thirty-five volumes. Most of these
decisions are on matters of grave difficulty, and many of them
of first impression. Story absolutely created a vast amount of

law for our country. Indeed, he was essentially a builder.
When he came to the bench, the law of admiralty was quite
vague and unformed; his genius formed it as exclusively as
Stowell's did in England. He also did much toward building up
the equity system which has become part of our jurisprudence.
In questions of international and constitutional law, the
breadth and variety of his legal learning enabled him to shine
with peculiar brilliancy. It is sufficient to say that there
is scarcely any branch of the law which he has not greatly
illustrated and enlarged,—prize, constitutional, admiralty,
patent, copyright, insurance, real estate, commercial law so
called, and equity,—all were gracefully familiar to him. The
most celebrated of his judgments are De Lovio v. Boit, in
which be investigates the jurisdiction of the Admiralty;
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, which examines the appellate
jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court; Dartmouth
College v. Woodward, in which the question was, whether the
charter of a college was a contract within the meaning of the
constitutional provision prohibiting the enactment, by any
State, of laws impairing the obligations of contracts; his
dissenting opinion in Charles River Bridge Company v. The
Warren Bridge; involving substantially the same question as
the last case; and the opinion in the Girard will case. These
are the most celebrated, but are scarcely superior to scores
of his opinions in cases never heard of beyond the legal
profession. His biographer is perhaps warranted in saying of
his father's judicial opinions: 'For closeness of texture and
compact logic, they are equal to the best judgments of
Marshall; for luminousness and method, they stand beside those
of Mansfield; in elegance of style, they yield the palm only
to the prize cases of Lord Stowell, but in fullness of
illustration and wealth and variety of learning, they stand
alone."
Irving Browne,
Short Studies of Great Lawyers,
pages 293-295.
EQUITY: A. D. 1814-1823.
Chancellor Kent.
"In February, 1814, he was appointed chancellor. The powers
and jurisdiction of the court of chancery were not clearly
defined. There were scarcely any precedents of its decisions,
to which reference could be made in case of doubt. Without any
other guide, he felt at liberty to exercise such powers of the
English chancery as he deemed applicable under the
Constitution and laws of the State, subject to the correction
of the Court of Errors, on appeal. … On the 31st of July,
1823, having attained the age of sixty years, the period
limited by the Constitution for the tenure of his office, he
retired from the court, after hearing and deciding every case
that had been brought before him. On this occasion the members
of the bar residing in the City of New York, presented him an
address. After speaking of the inestimable benefits conferred
on the community by his judicial labors for five and twenty
years they say: 'During this long course of services, so
useful and honorable, and which will form the most brilliant
period in our judicial history, you have, by a series of
decisions in law and equity, distinguished alike for practical
wisdom, profound learning, deep research and accurate
discrimination, contributed to establish the fabric of our
jurisprudence on those sound principles that have been
sanctioned by the experience of mankind, and expounded by the
enlightened and venerable sages of the law. Though others may
hereafter enlarge and adorn the edifice whose deep and solid
foundations were laid by the wise and patriotic framers of our
government, in that common law which they claimed for the people
as their noblest inheritance, your labors on this magnificent
structure will forever remain eminently conspicuous, command
the applause of the present generation, and exciting the
admiration and gratitude of future ages.'"
Charles B. Waite,
James Kent
(Chicago Law Times,
volume 3, pages 339-341).
{1994}
EQUITY: A. D. 1821.
Negative Pleas to be supported by an Answer.
"The principle of negative pleas was first established by the
introduction of anomalous pleas; but it was not perceived at
first that anomalous pleas involved the admission of pure
negative pleas. It would often happen, however, that a
defendant would have no affirmative defence to a bill, and yet
the bill could not be supported because of the falsity of some
material allegation contained in it; and, if the defendant
could deny this false allegation by a negative plea, he would
thereby avoid giving discovery as to all other parts of the
bill. At length, therefore, the experiment of setting up such
a plea was tried; and, though unsuccessful at first, it
prevailed in the end, and negative pleas became fully
established. If they had been well understood, they might have
proved a moderate success, although they were wholly foreign
to the system into which they were incorporated; but, as it
was, their introduction was attended with infinite mischief
and trouble, and they did much to bring the system into
disrepute. For example, it was not clearly understood for a
long time that a pure negative plea required the support of an
answer; and there was no direct decision to that effect until
the case of Sanders v. King, 6 Madd. 61, Cas. in Eq. Pl. 74,
decided in 1821."
C. C. Langdell,
Summary of Equity Pleading,
pages 113-114.
EQUITY: A. D. 1834.
First Statute of Limitations in Equity.
"None of the English statutes of limitation, prior to 3 & 4
Wm. IV., c. 27, had any application to suits in equity.
Indeed, they contained no general terms embracing all actions
at law, but named specifically all actions to which they
applied; and they made no mention whatever of suits in equity.
If a plaintiff sued in equity, when he might have brought an
action at law, and the time for bringing the action was
limited by statute, the statute might in a certain sense be
pleaded to the suit in equity; for the defendant might say
that, if the plaintiff had sued at law, his action would have
been barred; that the declared policy of the law therefore,
was against the plaintiff's recovering; and hence the cause
was not one of which a court of equity ought to take
cognizance. In strictness, however, the plea in such a case
would be to the jurisdiction of the court."
C. C. Langdell,
Summary of Equity Pleading,
pages 149-150.
EQUITY: A. D. 1836.
Personal Character of Shares of Stock first established in
England.
"The most accurate definition of the nature of the property
acquired by the purchase of a share of stock in a corporation
is that it is a fraction of all the rights and duties of the
stockholders composing the corporation. Such does not seem to
have been the clearly recognized view till after the beginning
of the present century. The old idea was rather that the
corporation held all its property strictly as a trustee, and
that the shareholders were, strictly speaking, 'cestuis que
trust,' being in equity co-owners of the corporate property.
… It was not until the decision of Bligh v. Brent [Y. & C.
268], in 1836, that the modern view was established in
England."
S. Williston,
History of the Law of Business Corporations before 1800
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 2, pages 149-151).
EQUITY: A. D. 1875.
Patents, Copyrights and Trade-Marks.
"In modern times the inventor of a new process obtains from
the State, by way of recompense for the benefit he has
conferred upon society, and in order to encourage others to
follow his example, not only an exclusive privilege of using
the new process for a fixed term of years, but also the right
of letting or selling his privilege to another. Such an
indulgence is called a patent-right, and a very similar
favour, known as copy-right, is granted to the authors of
books, and to painters, engravers, and sculptors, in the
productions of their genius. It has been a somewhat vexed
question whether a 'trade-mark' is to be added to the list of
intangible objects of ownership. It was at any rate so treated
in a series of judgments by Lord Westbury, which, it seems,
are still good law. He says, for instance, 'Imposition on the
public is indeed necessary for the plaintiff's title, but in
this way only, that it is the test of the invasion by the
defendant of the plaintiff's right of property.' [Citing 33 L.
J. Ch. 204; cf. 35 Ch. D. Oakley v. Dalton.] It was also so
described in the 'Trade Marks Registration Act,' 1875
[sections 3, 4, 5], as it was in the French law of 1857
relating to 'Marques de fabrique et de commerce.' The
extension of the idea of ownership to these three rights is of
comparatively recent date. Patent-right in England is older
than the Statute of Monopolies, 21 Jac. I. C. 3, and
copy-right is obscurely traceable previously to the Act of 8
Anne, C. 19, but trade-marks were first protected in the
present century."
T. E. Holland,
Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,
page 183.
ALSO IN:
E. S. Drone,
Treatise on the Law of Property in Intellectual Productions.
----------EQUITY: End--------
Topics of law treated under other heads are indicated by the
following references:
Agrarian Laws.
See AGRARIAN.
Assize of Jerusalem.
See ASSIZE.
Brehon Laws.
See BREHON.
Canuleian Laws.
See ROME: B. C. 445.
Code Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1804.
Common Law.
See COMMON LAW.
Constitutional Laws.
See CONSTITUTION.
Debt and Debtors.
See DEBT.
Dioklesian Laws.
See DIOKLES.
Dooms of Ihne.
See DOOMS.
Draconian Laws.
See ATHENS: B. C. 624.
Factory Laws.
See FACTORY.
Hortensian Laws.
See ROME: B. C. 286.
Institutes and Pandects of Justinian.
See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.
Licinian Laws.
See ROME: B. C. 376.
Lycurgan Laws.
See SPARTA.
Laws of Manu.
See MANU.
Navigation Laws.
See NAVIGATION LAWS.
Ogulnian Law.
See ROME: B. C. 300.
Laws of Oleron.
See OLERON.
Poor Laws.
See POOR LAWS.
Publilian Laws.
See ROME: B. C. 472-471, and 340.
Salic Laws.
See SALIC.
Slave Codes.
See SLAVERY.
Solonian Laws.
See ATHENS: B. C. 594.
Tariff Legislation.
See TARIFF.
Terentilian Law.
See ROME: B. C. 451-449.
The Twelve Tables.
See ROME: B. C. 451-449.
Valerian Law.
See ROME: B. C. 509.
Valero-Horatian Law.
See ROME: B. C. 449.
{1995}
LAWFELD, Battle of (1747).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747.
LAWRENCE, Captain James:
In the War of 1812.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.
LAWRENCE, Lord, the Indian Administration of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849; 1857 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER);
and 1862-1876.
LAWRENCE, Kansas: A. D. 1863.
Sacking of the town by Quantrell's guerrillas.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST: MISSOURI-KANSAS).
LAYBACH, Congress of.
See VERONA, CONGRESS OF.
LAZARISTS, The.
"The Priests of the Missions, or the Lazarists ['sometimes
called the Vincentian Congregation'], … have not
unfrequently done very essential service to Christianity."
Their Society was founded in 1624 by St. Vincent de Paul, "at
the so-called Priory of St. Lazarus in Paris, whence the name
Lazarists. … Besides their mission-labours, they took
complete charge, in many instances, of ecclesiastical
seminaries, which, in obedience to the instruction of the
Council of Trent, had been established in the various
dioceses, and even at this day many of these institutions are
under their direction. In the year 1642 these devoted priests
were to be seen in Italy, and not long after were sent to
Algiers, to Tunis, to Madagascar, and to Poland."
J. Alzog
Manual of Universal Church History,
volume 3, pages 463-465.
ALSO IN:
H. L. S. Lear,
Priestly Life in France,
chapter 5.
LAZICA.
LAZIC WAR.
"Lazica, the ancient Colchis and the modern Mingrelia and
Imeritia, bordered upon the Black Sea." From A. D. 522 to 541
the little kingdom was a dependency of Rome, its king, having
accepted Christianity, acknowledging himself a vassal of the
Roman or Byzantine emperor. But the Romans provoked a revolt
by their encroachments. "They seized and fortified a strong
post, called Petra, upon the coast, appointed a commandant who
claimed an authority as great as that of the Lazic king, and
established a commercial monopoly which pressed with great
severity upon the poorer classes of the Lazi." The Persians
were accordingly invited in to drive the Romans out, and did
so, reducing Lazica, for the time being, to the state of a
Persian province. But, in their turn, the Persians became
obnoxious, and the Lazi, making their peace with Rome, were
taken by the Emperor Justinian under his protection. "The
Lazic war, which commenced in consequence of this act of
Justinian's, continued almost without intermission for nine
years—from A. D. 549 to 557. Its details are related at great
length by Procopius and Agathias, who view the struggle as one
which vitally concerned the interests of their country.
According to them, Chosroës [the Persian king] was bent upon
holding Lazica in order to construct at the mouth of the
Phasis a great naval station and arsenal, from which his
fleets might issue to command the commerce or ravage the
shores of the Black Sea." The Persians in the end withdrew
from Lazica, but the Romans, by treaty, paid them an annual
tribute for their possession of the country.
G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Monarchy,
chapter 20.
ALSO IN:
J. Bury,
Later Roman Empire,
book 4, chapter 9 (volume 1).
See, also, PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
LAZZI, The.
See LÆTI.
LEAGUE, The Achaian.
See GREECE: B.C. 280-146.
LEAGUE, The Anti-Corn-Law.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND):
A. D. 1836-1839; and 1845-1846.
LEAGUE, The Borromean or Golden.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1579-1630.
LEAGUE, The Catholic, in France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585, and after.
LEAGUE, The first Catholic, in Germany.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.
LEAGUE, The second Catholic, in Germany.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.
LEAGUE, The Cobblers'.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.
LEAGUE, The Delian.
See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.
LEAGUE, The Hanseatic.
See HANSA TOWNS.
LEAGUE, The Holy,
of the Catholic party in the Religious Wars of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585, to 1593-1598.
LEAGUE, The Holy, of German Catholic princes.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.
LEAGUE, The Holy, of Pope Clement VII. against Charles V.
See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.
LEAGUE, The Holy, of Pope Innocent XI.,
the Emperor, Venice, Poland and Russia against the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.
LEAGUE, The Holy, of Pope Julius II.
against Louis XII. of France.
See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.
LEAGUE, The Holy, of Spain, Venice and the Pope against the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.
LEAGUE, The Irish Land.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879; and 1881-1882.
LEAGUE, The Swabian.
See LANDFRIEDE, &c.
LEAGUE, The Union.
See UNION LEAGUE.
LEAGUE AND COVENANT, The solemn.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
LEAGUE OF AUGSBURG.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.
LEAGUE OF CAMBRAI.
See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.
LEAGUE OF LOMBARDY.
See ITALY: A. D. 1166-1167.
LEAGUE OF POOR CONRAD, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.
LEAGUE OF RATISBON.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.
LEAGUE OF SMALKALDE, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.
LEAGUE OF THE GUEUX.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.
LEAGUE OF THE PRINCES.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1485-1487.
LEAGUE OF THE PUBLIC WEAL.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468; also, 1453-1461.
LEAGUE OF THE RHINE.
See RHINE LEAGUE.
LEAGUE OF TORGAU.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.
LEAGUES, The Grey.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.
LE BOURGET, Sortie of (1870).
See FRANCE: A. D.1870-1871.
LECHFELD, OR BATTLE ON THE LECH (A. D. 955).
See HUNGARIANS: A. D. 935-955.
{1996}
LECHFELD, OR BATTLE ON THE LECH (1632.)
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, The.
See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.
LEE, General Charles, and the War of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST);
1776 (JUNE), (AUGUST); and 1778 (JUNE).
LEE, General Henry ("Light Horse Harry"),
and the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1780-1781.
LEE, Richard Henry,
And the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE), (JULY).
LEE, Richard Henry,
Opposition to the Federal Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.
LEE, General Robert E.
Campaign in West Virginia.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).
LEE, General Robert E.,
Command on the Peninsula.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE: VIRGINIA),
and (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).
LEE, General Robert E.
Campaign against Pope.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA);
(AUGUST: VIRGINIA); and (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).
LEE, General Robert E.
First invasion of Maryland.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).
LEE, General Robert E.
Defeat of Hooker.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).
LEE, General Robert E.
The second movement of invasion.
Gettysburg and after.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JUNE: VIRGINIA),
and (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA);
also (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).
LEE, General Robert E.
Last Campaigns.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA), to 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).
LEEDS, Battle at (1643).
Leeds, occupied by the Royalists, under Sir William Savile,
was taken by Sir Thomas Fairfax, after hard fighting, on the
23d of January, 1643.
C. R. Markham,
Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
chapter 9.
LEESBURG, OR BALL'S BLUFF, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).
LEEWARD ISLANDS, The.
See WEST INDIES.
LEFÈVRE, Jacques, and the Reformation in France.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.
LEFT, The.
Left Center, The.
See RIGHT, &c.
LEGATE.
This was the title given to the lieutenant-general or
associate chosen by a Roman commander or provincial governor
to be his second-in-authority.
W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 12.
LEGES JULIÆ,
LEGES SEMPRONIÆ, &c.
See JULIAN LAWS; SEMPRONIAN LAWS, &c.
LEGION, The Roman.
"The original order of a Roman army was, as it seems, similar
to the phalanx: but the long unbroken line had been divided
into smaller detachments since, and perhaps by Camillus. The
long wars in the Samnite mountains naturally caused the Romans
to retain and to perfect this organisation, which made their
army more movable and pliable, without preventing the separate
bodies quickly combining and forming in one line. The legion
now [at the time of the war with Pyrrhus, B. C. 280] consisted
of thirty companies (called 'manipuli') of the average
strength of a hundred men, which were arranged in three lines
of ten manipuli each, like the black squares on a chessboard.
The manipuli of the first line consisted of the youngest
troops, called 'hastati'; those of the second line, called
'principes,' were men in the full vigour of life; those of the
third, the 'triarii,' formed a reserve of older soldiers, and
were numerically only half as strong as the other two lines.
The tactic order of the manipuli enabled the general to move
the 'principes' forward into the intervals of the 'hastati,'
or to withdraw the 'hastati' back into the intervals of the
'principes,' the 'triarii' being kept as a reserve. … The
light troops were armed with javelins, and retired behind the
solid mass of the manipuli as soon as they had discharged
their weapons in front of the line, at the beginning of the
combat."
W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 3, chapter 16 (volume 1).
"The legions, as they are described by Polybius, in the time
of the Punic wars, differed very materially from those which
achieved the victories of Cæsar, or defended the monarchy of
Hadrian and the Antonines. The constitution of the Imperial
legion may be described in a few words. The heavy-armed
infantry, which composed its principal strength, was divided
into ten cohorts, and fifty-five companies, under the orders
of a correspondent number of tribunes and centurions. The
first cohort, which always claimed the post of honour and the
custody of the eagle, was formed of 1,105 soldiers, the most
approved for valour and fidelity. The remaining nine cohorts
consisted each of 555; and the whole body of legionary
infantry amounted to 6,100 men. … The legion was usually
drawn up eight deep, and the regular distance of three feet
was left between the files as well as ranks. … The cavalry,
without which the force of the legion would have remained
imperfect, was divided into ten troops or squadrons; the
first, as the companion of the first cohort, consisted of 132
men; whilst each of the other nine amounted only to 66."
E. Gibbon
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 12.
LEGION OF HONOR, Institution of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.
LEGITIMISTS AND ORLEANISTS.
The partisans of Bourbon monarchy in France became divided
into two factions by the revolution of 1830, which deposed
Charles X. and raised Louis Philippe to the throne. Charles
X., brother of Louis XVI. and Louis XVIII., was in the direct
line of royal descent, from Louis XIV. Louis Philippe, Duke of
Orleans, who displaced him, belonged to a younger branch of
the Bourbon family, descending from the brother of Louis XIV.,
Philippe, Duke of Orleans, father of the Regent Orleans. Louis
Philippe, in his turn, was expelled from the throne in 1848,
and the crown, after that event, became an object of claim in
both families. The claim supported by the Legitimists was
extinguished in 1883 by the death of the childless Comte de
Chambord, grandson of Charles X. The Orleanist claim is still
maintained (1894) by the Comte de Paris, grandson of Louis
Philippe.
LEGNANO, Battle of (1176).
See ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.
LEICESTER, The Earl of, in the Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586; and 1587-1588.
LEINSTER TRIBUTE, The.
See BOARIAN TRIBUTE.
{1997}
----------LEIPSIC: Start----------
LEIPSIC: A. D. 1631.
Battle of Breitenfeld, before the city.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.
LEIPSIC: A. D. 1642.
Second Battle of Breitenfeld.
Surrender of the city to the Swedes.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
LEIPSIC: A. D. 1813.
Occupied by the Prussians and Russians.
Regained by the French.
The great "Battle of the Nations."
See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813;
1813 (APRIL-MAY), (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER).
----------LEIPSIC: End----------
LEIPSIC, University of.
See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.
LEISLER'S REVOLUTION.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1689-1691.
LEITH, The Concordat of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.
LEKHS, The.
See LYGIANS.
LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1884-1891.
LELANTIAN FIELDS.
LELANTIAN FEUD.
See CHALCIS AND ERETRIA; and EUBŒA.
LELEGES, The.
"The Greeks beyond the sea [Ionian Greeks of Asia Minor] were
however not merely designated in groups, according to the
countries out of which they came, but certain collective names
existed for them—such as that of Javan in the East. … Among
all these names the most widely spread was that of the
Leleges, which the ancients themselves designated as that of a
mixed people. In Lycia, in Miletus, and in the Troad these
Leleges had their home; in other words, on the whole extent of
coast in which we have recognized the primitive seats of the
people of Ionic Greeks."
E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 1, chapter 2.
See, also, DORIANS AND IONIANS.
LELIAERDS.
In the mediæval annals of the Flemish people, the partisans of
the French are called "Leliaerds," from "lelie," the Flemish
for lily.
J. Hutton,
James and Philip van Arteveld,
page 32, foot-note.
LE MANS: Defeat of the Vendéans.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).
LE MANS, Battle of (1871).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.
LEMNOS.
One of the larger islands in the northern part of the Ægean
Sea, lying opposite the Trojan coast. It was anciently
associated with Samothrace and Imbros in the mysterious
worship of the Cabeiri.
LEMOVICES, The.
The Lemovices were a tribe of Gauls who occupied, in Cæsar's
time, the territory afterwards known as the Limousin
—department of Upper Vienne and parts adjoining.
Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2, foot-note.
The city of Limoges derived its existence and its name from
the Lemovices.
LEMOVII, The.
A tribe in ancient Germany whose territory, on the Baltic
coast, probably in the neighborhood of Danzig, bordered on
that of the Gothones.
Church and Brodribb,
Geographical Notes to the Germany of Tacitus.
LENAPE, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES.
LENS, Siege and battle (1647-1648).
See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.
LENTIENSES, The.
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.
LEO I., Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 457-474.
Leo II., Pope, 682-683.
Leo II., Roman Emperor (Eastern), 474.
Leo III., Pope, 795-816.
Leo III. (called The Isaurian),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek),717-741.
Leo IV., Pope, 847-855.
Leo IV., Emperor in the East
(Byzantine, or Greek), 775-780.
Leo V., Pope, 903, October to December.
Leo V., Emperor in the East
(Byzantine, or Greek), 813-820.
Leo VI., Pope, 928-929.
Leo VI., Emperor in the East
(Byzantine, or Greek), 886-911.
Leo VII., Pope, 936-939.
Leo VIII., Anti-pope, 963-965.
Leo IX., Pope, 1049-1054.
Leo X., Pope, 1513-1521.
Leo XI., Pope, 1605, April 2-27.
Leo XII., Pope, 1823-1829.
Leo XIII., Pope, 1878.
LEOBEN, Preliminary treaty of (1797).
See FRANCE: A.D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
LEODIS (WEREGILD).
See GRAF.
LEON, Ponce de, and his quest.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1512.
----------LEON: Start--------
LEON,
Origin of the name of the city and kingdom.
"This name Legio or Leon, so long borne by a province and by
its chief city in Spain, is derived from the old Roman 'Regnum
Legionis' (Kingdom of the Legion)."
H. Coppée,
Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
book 5, chapter 1 (volume 1).
LEON:
Origin of the kingdom.
See SPAIN: A. D. 713-910.
LEON:
Union of the kingdom with Castile.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230; and 1212-1238.
----------LEON: End--------
LEONIDAS AT THERMOPYLÆ.
See GREECE: B. C. 480;
and ATHENS: B. C. 480-479.
LEONINE CITY, The
See VATICAN.
LEONTINI.
The Leontine War.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.
LEONTIUS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 695-698.
LEOPOLD I.,
Germanic Emperor, A. D. 1658-1705;
King of Hungary, 1655-1705:
King of Bohemia, 1657-1705.
Leopold I., King of Belgium, 1831-1865.
Leopold II., Germanic Emperor, and King of Hungary and
Bohemia, 1790-1792.
Leopold II., King of Belgium, 1865.
LEPANTO, Naval Battle of (1571).
See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.
LEPERS AND JEWS, Persecution of.
See JEWS: A. D. 1321.
LIPIDUS, Revolutionary attempt of.
See ROME: B. C. 78-68.
LEPTA.
See TALENT.
LEPTIS MAGNA.
"The city of Leptis Magna, originally a Phœnician colony, was
the capital of this part of the province [the tract of
north-African coast between the Lesser and the Greater
Syrtes], and held much the same prominent position as that of
Tripoli at the present day. The only other towns in the region
of the Syrtes, as it was sometimes called, were Œa, on the
site of the modern Tripoli, and Sabrata, the ruins of which
are still visible at a place called Tripoli Vecchio. The three
together gave the name of the Tripolis of Africa to this
region, as distinguished from the Pentapolis of Cyrenaïca.
Hence the modern appellation."
E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 20, section 1, footnote (volume 2).
See, also, CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.
{1998}
LERIDA: B. C. 49.
Cæsar's success against the Pompeians.
See ROME: B. C. 49.
LERIDA: A. D. 1644-1646,
Sieges and battle.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.
LERIDA: A. D. 1707.
Stormed and sacked by the French and Spaniards.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1707.
----------LESBOS: Start--------
LESBOS.
The largest of the islands of the Ægean, lying south of the
Troad, great part of which it once controlled, was
particularly distinguished in the early literary history of
ancient Greece, having produced what is called "the Æolian
school" of lyric poetry. Alcæus, Sappho, Terpander and Arion
were poets who sprang from Lesbos. The island was one of the
important colonies of what was known as the Æolic migration,
but became subject to Athens after the Persian War. In the
fourth year of the Peloponnesian War its chief city, Mitylene
(which afterwards gave its name to the entire island), seized
the opportunity to revolt. The siege and reduction of Mytilene
by the Athenians was one of the exciting incidents of that
struggle.
Thucydides,
History,
book 3.
ALSO IN:
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapters 14 and 50.
See, also, ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES;
and GREECE: B. C. 429-427.
LESBOS: B. C. 412.
Revolt from Athens.
See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.
----------LESBOS: End--------
LESCHE, The.
The clubs of Sparta and Athens formed an important feature of
the life of Greece. In every Grecian community there was a
place of resort called the Lesche. In Sparta it was peculiarly
the resort of old men, who assembled round a blazing fire in
winter, and were listened to with profound respect by their
juniors. These retreats were numerous in Athens.
C. O. Müller,
History and Antiquities of the Doric race,
volume 2, page 396.
"The proper home of the Spartan art of speech, the original
source of so many Spartan jokes current over all Greece, was
the Lesche, the place of meeting for men at leisure, near the
public drilling-grounds, where they met in small bands, and
exchanged merry talk."
E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
volume 1, page 220 (American edition).
LESCO V.,
Duke of Poland, A. D. 1194-1227.
Lesco VI., Duke of Poland, 1279-1289.
LESE-MAJESTY.
A term in English law signifying treason, borrowed from the
Romans. The contriving, or counselling or consenting to the
king's death, or sedition against the king, are included in
the crime of "lese-majesty."
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 21, section 786.
LE TELLIER, and the suppression of Port Royal.
See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.
LETTER OF MAJESTY, The.
See BOHEMIA. A. D. 1611-1618.
LETTERS OF MARQUE.
See PRIVATEERS.
LETTRE DE CACHET.
"In French history, a letter or order under seal; a private
letter of state: a name given especially to a written order
proceeding from and signed by the king, and countersigned by a
secretary of state, and used at first as an occasional means
of delaying the course of justice, but later, in the 17th and
18th centuries, as a warrant for the imprisonment without
trial of a person obnoxious for any reason to the government,
often for life or for a long period, and on frivolous
pretexts. Lettres de cachet were abolished at the Revolution."
Century Dictionary.
"The minister used to give generously blank lettres-de-cachet
to the intendants, the bishops, and people in the
administration. Saint-Florentin, alone, gave away as many as
50,000. Never had man's dearest treasure, liberty, been more
lavishly squandered. These letters were the object of a
profitable traffic; they were sold to fathers who wanted to
get rid of their sons, and given to pretty women who were
inconvenienced by their husbands. This last cause of
imprisonment was one of the most prominent. And all through
good-nature. The king [Louis XV.] was too good to refuse a
lettre-de-cachet to a great lord. The intendant was too
good-natured not to grant one at a lady's request. The
government clerks, the mistresses of the clerks, and the
friends of these mistresses, through good-nature, civility, or
mere politeness, obtained, gave, or lent, those terrible
orders by which a man was buried alive. Buried;—for such was
the carelessness and levity of those amiable clerks,—almost
all nobles, fashionable men, all occupied with their
pleasures,—that they never had the time, when once the poor
fellow was shut up, to think of his position."
J. Michelet,
Historical View of the French Revolution,
introduction, part 2, section 9.
LETTS.
See LITHUANIANS.
LEUCADIA,
LEUCAS.
Originally a peninsula of Acarnania, on the western coast of
Greece, but converted into an island by the Corinthians, who
cut a canal across its narrow neck. Its chief town, of the
same name, was at one time the meeting place of the Acarnanian
League. The high promontory at the south-western extremity of
the island was celebrated for the temple of Apollo which
crowned it, and as being the scene of the story of Sappho's
suicidal leap from the Leucadian rock.
LEUCÆ, Battle of.
The kingdom of Pergamum having been bequeathed to the Romans
by its last king, Attalus, a certain Aristonicus attempted to
resist their possession of it, and Crassus, one of the consuls
of B. C. 131 was sent against him. But Crassus had no success
and was finally defeated and slain, near Leucæ. Aristonicus
surrendered soon afterwards to M. Perperna and the war in
Pergamum was ended.
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 1, chapter 14.
LEUCATE, Siege and Battle (1637).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.
LEUCI, The.
A tribe in Belgic Gaul which occupied the southern part of the
modern department of the Meuse, the greater part of the
Meurthe, and the department of the Vosges.
Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2, footnote (volume 2).
LEUCTRA, Battle of (B. C. 371).
See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.
LEUD, OR LIDUS, The.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.
LEUDES.
"The Frankish warriors, but particularly the leaders, were
called 'leudes,' from the Teutonic word 'leude,' 'liude,'
'leute,' people, as some think (Thierry, Lettres sur l'Hist.
de Franc, p. 130). In the Scandinavian dialects, 'lide' means
a warrior … ; and in the Kymric also 'lwydd' means an army
or war-band. … It was not a title of dignity, as every free
fighter among the Franks was a leud, but in process of time
the term seems to have been restricted to the most prominent
and powerful warriors alone."
P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 3, chapter 12, foot-note.
{1999}
LEUGA, The.
"The roads in the whole Roman empire were measured and marked
according to the unit of the Roman mile (1.48 kilometer), and
up to the end of the second century this applied also to those
[the Gallic] provinces. But from Severus onward its place was
taken in the three Gauls and the two Germanies by a mile
correlated no doubt to the Roman, but yet different and with a
Gallic name, the 'leuga' (2.222 kilomètres), equal to one and
a half Roman miles. … The double 'leuga,' the German
'rasta,' … corresponds to the French 'lieue.'"
T. Mommsen,
History of the Romans,
book 8, chapter 3.
LEUKAS.
See KORKYRA.
LEUKOPETRA, Battle of (B. C. 146).
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
LEUTHEN, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER).
LEVELLERS, The.
"Especially popular among the soldiers [of the Parliamentary
Army, England, A. D. 1647-48], and keeping up their excitement
more particularly against the House of Lords, were the
pamphlets that came from John Lilburne, and an associate of
his named Richard Overton. … These were the pamphlets …
which … were popular with the common soldiers of the
Parliamentary Army, and nursed that especial form of the
democratic passion among them which longed to sweep away the
House of Lords and see England governed by a single
Representative House. Baxter, who reports this growth of
democratic opinion in the Army from his own observation,
distinctly recognises in it the beginnings of that rough
ultra-Republican party which afterwards became formidable
under the name of The Levellers."
D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
volume 3, book 4, chapter 1.
"They [the Levellers] had a vision of a pure and patriotic
Parliament, accurately representing the people, yet carrying
out a political programme incomprehensible to nine-tenths of
the nation. This Parliament was to represent all legitimate
varieties of thought, and was yet to act together as one man.
The necessity for a Council of State they therefore entirely
denied; and they denounced it as a new tyranny. The excise
they condemned as an obstruction to trade. They would have no
man compelled to fight, unless he felt free in his own
conscience to do so. They appealed to the law of nature, and
found their interpretation of it carrying them further and
further away from English traditions and habits, whether of
Church or State." A mutiny of the Levellers in the army, which
broke out in April and May, 1640, was put down with stern
vigor by Cromwell and Fairfax, several of the leaders being
executed.
J. A. Picton,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 17.
LEWES, Battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.
LEWIS AND CLARK'S EXPEDITION.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1801.
LEXINGTON, Massachusetts: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL).
----------LEXINGTON: Start--------
LEXINGTON, MISSOURI, Siege of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI).
LEXINGTON, MISSOURI: Battle at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).
----------LEXINGTON: End--------
LEXOVII, The.
The Lexovii were one of the tribes of northwestern Gaul, in
the time of Cæsar. Their position is indicated and their name,
in a modified form, preserved by the town of Lisieux between
Caen and Evreux.
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 4, chapter 6.
----------LEYDEN: Start--------
LEYDEN: A. D. 1574.
Siege by the Spaniards.
Relief by the flooding of the land.
The founding of the University.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574;
and EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE: NETHERLANDS.
LEYDEN: A. D. 1609-1620.
The Sojourn of the Pilgrim Fathers.
See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.
----------LEYDEN: End--------
LHASSA, the seat of the Grand Lama.
See LAMAS.
LIA-FAIL, The.
"The Tuatha-de-Danaan [the people who preceded the Milesians
in colonizing Ireland, according to the fabulous Irish
histories] brought with them from Scandinavia, among other
extraordinary things, three marvellous treasures, the
Lia-Fail, or Stone of Destiny, the Sorcerer's Spear, and the
Magic Caldron, all celebrated in the old Irish romances. The
Lia-Fail possessed the remarkable property of making a strange
noise and becoming wonderfully disturbed, whenever a monarch
of Ireland of pure blood was crowned, and a prophecy was
attached to it, that whatever country possessed it should be
ruled over by a king of Irish descent, and enjoy uninterrupted
success and prosperity. It was preserved at Cashel, where the
kings of Munster were crowned upon it. According to some
writers it was afterwards kept at the Hill of Tara, where it
remained until it was carried to Scotland by an Irish prince,
who succeeded to the crown of that country. There it was
preserved at Scone, until Edward I. carried it away into
England, and placed it under the seat of the coronation chair
of our kings, where it still remains. … It seems to be the
opinion of some modern antiquarians that a pillar stone still
remaining at the Hill of Tara is the true Lia-Fail, which in
that case was not carried to Scotland."
T. Wright,
History of Ireland,
book 1, chapter 2, and foot-note.
See, also, SCOTLAND: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.
LIBBY PRISON.
See PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS, CONFEDERATE.
LIBERAL ARTS, The Seven.
See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SCHOLASTICISM,
LIBERAL REPUBLICAN PARTY.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1872.
LIBERAL UNIONISTS.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.
LIBERI HOMINES.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND.
LIBERIA, The founding of the Republic of.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1816-1847.
LIBERTINES OF GENEVA, The.
The party which opposed Calvin's austere and arbitrary rule in
Geneva were called Libertines.
F. P. Guizot,
John Calvin,
chapter 9-16.
LIBERTINI.
See INGENUI.
LIBERTY BELL, The.
See INDEPENDENCE HALL.
{2000}
LIBERTY BOYS.
The name by which the Sons of Liberty of the American
Revolution were familiarly known.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1765; NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774;
and LIBERTY TREE.
LIBERTY CAP.
"This emblem, like many similar ones received by the
revolutions from the hand of chance, was a mystery even to
those who wore it. It had been adopted [at Paris] for the
first time on the day of the triumph of the soldiers of
Châteauvieux [April 15, 1792, when 41 Swiss soldiers of the
regiment of Châteauvieux, condemned to the galleys for
participation in a dangerous mutiny of the garrison at Nancy
in 1790, but liberated in compliance with the demands of the
mob, were fêted as heroes by the Jacobins of Paris]. Some said
it was the coiffure of the galley-slaves, once infamous, but
glorious since it had covered the brows of these martyrs of
the insurrection; and they added that the people wished to
purify this head-dress from every stain by wearing it
themselves. Others only saw in it the Phrygian bonnet, a
symbol of freedom for slaves. The 'bonnet rouge' had from its
first appearance been the subject of dispute and dissension
amongst the Jacobins; the 'exaltés' wore it, whilst the
'modérés' yet abstained from adopting it." Robespierre and his
immediate followers opposed the "frivolity" of the "bonnet
rouge," and momentarily suppressed it in the Assembly. "But
even the voice of Robespierre, and the resolutions of the
Jacobins, could not arrest the outbreak of enthusiasm that had
placed the sign of 'avenging equality' ('l'égalité
vengeresse') on every head; and the evening of the day on
which it was repudiated at the Jacobins' saw it inaugurated at
all the theatres. The bust of Voltaire, the destroyer of
prejudice, was adorned with the Phrygian cap of liberty,
amidst the shouts of the spectators, whilst the cap and pike
became the uniform and weapon of the citizen soldier."
A. de Lamartine,
History of the Girondists,
book 13 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
H. M. Stephens,
History of the French Revolution,
volume 2, chapter 2.
LIBERTY GAP, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: TENNESSEE).
LIBERTY PARTY AND LIBERTY LEAGUE.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1840-1847.
LIBERTY TREE AND LIBERTY HALL.
"Lafayette said, when in Boston, 'The world should never
forget the spot where once stood Liberty Tree, so famous in
your annals.' … The open space at the four corners of
Washington, Essex, and Boylston streets was once known as
Hanover Square, from the royal house of Hanover, and sometimes
as the Elm Neighborhood, from the magnificent elms with which
it was environed. It was one of the finest of these that
obtained the name of Liberty Tree, from its being used on the
first occasion of resistance to the obnoxious Stamp Act. …
At daybreak on the 14th August, 1765, nearly ten years before
active hostilities broke out, an effigy of Mr. Oliver, the
Stamp officer, and a boot, with the Devil peeping out of
it,—an allusion to Lord Bute,—was discovered hanging from
Liberty Tree. The images remained hanging all day, and were
visited by great numbers of people, both from the town and the
neighboring country. Business was almost suspended.
Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson ordered the sheriff to take the
figures down, but he was obliged to admit that he dared not do
so. As the day closed in the effigies were taken down, placed
upon a bier, and, followed by several thousand people of every
class and condition," were borne through the city and then
burned, after which much riotous conduct on the part of the
crowd occurred. In 1766, when the repeal of the Stamp Act took
place, a large copper plate was fastened to the tree,
inscribed in golden characters:—'This tree was planted in the
year 1646, and pruned by order of the Sons of Liberty,
February 14th, 1766.' … The ground immediately about Liberty
Tree was popularly known as Liberty Hall. In August, 1767, a
flagstaff had been erected, which went through and extended
above its highest branches. A flag hoisted upon this staff was
the signal for the assembling of the Sons of Liberty. … In
August, 1775, the name of Liberty having become offensive to
the Tories and their British allies, the tree was cut down by
a party led by one Job Williams."
S. A. Drake,
Old Landmarks of Boston,
chapter 14.
LIBERUM VETO, The.
See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652.
LIBRA, The Roman.
The ancient Roman unit of weight was the libra, or pondus,
from which the modern names of the livre and pound are
derived. Its weight was equal to 5,015 Troy gr. or 325 grams,
and it was identical with the Greek-Asiatic mina."
H. W. Chisholm,
Science of Weighing and Measuring,
chapter 2.
See, also, AS.
----------LIBRARIES: Start--------
LIBRARIES:
Ancient, Babylonia and Assyria.
"The Babylonians were … essentially a reading and writing
people. … Books were numerous and students were many. The
books were for the most part written upon clay [tablets] with
a wooden reed or metal stylus, for clay was cheap and
plentiful, and easily impressed with the wedge-shaped lines of
which the characters were composed. But besides clay, papyrus
and possibly also parchment were employed as writing
materials; at all events the papyrus is referred to in the
texts."
A. H. Sayce,
Social Life among the Assyrians and Babylonians,
page 30.
"We must speak of the manner in which the tablet was formed.
Fine clay was selected, kneaded, and moulded into the shape of
the required tablet. One side was flat, and the other rounded.
The writing was then inscribed on both sides, holes were
pricked in the clay, and then it was baked. The holes allowed
the steam which was generated during the process of baking to
escape. It is thought that the clay used in some of the
tablets was not only well kneaded, but ground in some kind of
mill, for the texture of the clay is as fine as some of our
best modern pottery. The wedges appear to have been impressed
by a square headed instrument."
E. A. W. Budge,
Babylonian Life and History,
p. 105.
{2001}
Assurbanipal, the Sardanapalus of the Greeks, was the greatest
and most celebrated of Assyrian monarchs. He was the principal
patron of Assyrian literature, and the greater part of the
grand library at Nineveh was written during his reign."
G. Smith,
Assyrian Discoveries,
chapter 18.
"Assurbanipal is fond of old books, particularly of the old
sacred works. He collects the scattered specimens from the
chief cities of his empire, and even employs scribes in
Chaldea, Ourouk, Barsippa, and Babylon to copy for him the
tablets deposited in the temples. His principal library is at
Nineveh, in the palace which he built for himself upon the
banks of the Tigris, and which he has just finished
decorating. It contains more than thirty thousand tablets,
methodically classified and arranged in several rooms, with
detailed catalogues for convenient reference. Many of the
works are continued from tablet to tablet and form a series,
each bearing the first words of the text as its title. The
account of the creation, which begins with the phrase:
'Formerly, that which is above was not yet called the heaven,'
was entitled: 'Formerly, that which is above, No.1;'
'Formerly, that which is above, No.2;' and so on to the end.
Assurbanipal is not less proud of his love of letters than of
his political activity, and he is anxious that posterity
should know how much he has done for literature. His name is
inscribed upon every work in his library, ancient and modern.
'The palace of Assurbanipal, king of legions, king of
multitudes, king of Assyria, to whom the god Nebo and the
goddess Tasmetu have granted attentive ears and open eyes to
discover the writings of the scribes of my kingdom, whom the
kings my predecessors, have employed. In my respect for Nebo,
the god of intelligence, I have collected these tablets; I
have had them copied, I have marked them with my name, and I
have deposited them in my palace.' The library at Dur-Sarginu,
although not so rich as the one in Nineveh, is still fairly
well supplied."
G. Maspéro,
Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria,
chapter 16.
Collections of inscribed tablets had been made by
Tiglath-Pileser II., king of Assyria, B. C. 745, who had
copied some historical inscriptions of his predecessors.
Sargon, the founder of the dynasty to which Assur-bani-pal
belonged, B. C. 722, had increased this library by adding a
collection of astrological and similar texts, and Sennacherib,
B. C. 705, had composed copies of the Assyrian canon, short
histories, and miscellaneous inscriptions, to add to the
collection. Sennacherib also moved the library from Calah, its
original seat, to Nineveh, the capital. Esarhaddon, B. C. 681,
added numerous historical and mythological texts. All the
inscriptions of the former kings were, however, nothing
compared to those written during the reign of Assur-bani-pal.
Thousands of inscribed tablets from all places, and on every
variety of subject, were collected, and copied, and stored in
the library of the palace at Nineveh during his reign; and by
his statements they appear to have been intended for the
inspection of the people, and to spread learning among the
Assyrians. Among these tablets one class consisted of
historical texts, some the histories of the former kings of
Assyria, and others copies of royal inscriptions from various
other places. Similar to these were the copies of treaties,
despatches, and orders from the king to his generals and
ministers, a large number of which formed part of the library.
There was a large collection of letters of all sorts, from
despatches to the king on the one hand, down to private notes
on the other. Geography found a place among the sciences, and
was represented by lists of countries, towns, rivers, and
mountains, notices of the position, products, and character of
districts, &c., &c. There were tables giving accounts of the
law and legal decisions, and tablets with contracts, loans,
deeds of sale and barter, &c. There were lists of tribute and
taxes, accounts of property in the various cities, forming
some approach to a census and general account of the empire.
One large and important section of the library was devoted to
legends of various sorts, many of which were borrowed from
other countries. Among these were the legends of the hero
Izdubar, perhaps the Nimrod of the Bible. One of these legends
gives the Chaldean account of the flood, others of this
description give various fables and stories of evil spirits.
The mythological part of the library embraced lists of the
gods, their titles, attributes, temples, &c., hymns in praise
of various deities, prayers to be used by different classes of
men to different gods, and under various circumstances, as
during eclipses or calamities, on setting out for a campaign,
&c., &e. Astronomy was represented by various tablets and
works on the appearance and motions of the heavens, and the
various celestial phenomena. Astrology was closely connected
with Astronomy, and formed a numerous class of subjects and
inscriptions. An interesting division was formed by the works
on natural history; these consisted of lists of animals,
birds, reptiles, trees, grasses, stones, &c., &c., arranged in
classes, according to their character and affinities as then
understood, lists of minerals and their uses, lists of foods,
&c., &c. Mathematics and arithmetic were found, including
square and cube root, the working out of problems, &c., &c.
Much of the learning on these tablets was borrowed from the
Chaldeans and the people of Babylon, and had originally been
written in a different language and style of writing, hence it
was necessary to have translations and explanations of many of
these; and in order to make their meaning clear, grammars,
dictionaries, and lexicons were prepared, embracing the
principal features of the two languages involved, and enabling
the Assyrians to study the older inscriptions. Such are some
of the principal features of the grand Assyrian library, which
Assur-bani-pal established at Nineveh, and which probably
numbered over 10,000 clay documents."
George Smith,
Ancient History from the Monuments: Assyria,
pages 188-191.
"It is now [1882] more than thirty years since Sir Henry
Layard, passing through one of the doorways of the partially
explored palace in the mound of Konyunjik, guarded by
sculptured fish gods, stood for the first time in the double
chambers containing a large portion of the remains of the
immense library collected by Assurbannipal, King of Nineveh.
… Since that time, with but slight intermissions, this
treasure-house of a forgotten past has been turned over again
and again, notably in the expeditions of the late Mr. George
Smith, and still the supply of its cuneiform literature is not
exhausted. Until last year [1881] this discovery remained
unique; but the perseverance of the British Museum authorities
and the patient labour of Mr. Rassam were then rewarded by the
exhumation of what is apparently the library chamber of the
temple or palace at Sippara, with all its 10,000 tablets,
resting undisturbed, arranged in their position on the
shelves, just as placed in order by the librarian twenty-five
centuries ago. …
{2002}
From what Berosus tells us with regard to Sippara, or
Pantibiblon (the town of books), the very city, one of whose
libraries has just been brought to light, … it may be
inferred that this was certainly one of the first towns that
collected a library. … It is possible that the mound at
Mugheir enshrines the oldest library of all, for here are the
remains of the city of Ur (probably the Biblical Ur of the
Chaldees). From this spot came the earliest known royal brick
inscription, as follows:—'Urukh, King of Ur, who Bit Nanur
built.' Although there are several texts from Mugheir, such as
that of Dungi, son of Urukh, yet, unless by means of copies
made for later libraries in Assyria, we cannot be said to know
much of its library. Strange to say, however, the British
Museum possesses the signet cylinder of one of the librarians
of Ur, who is the earliest known person holding such an
office. … Its inscription is given thus by
Smith:—'Emuq-sin, the powerful hero, the King of Ur, King of
the four regions; Amil Anu, the tablet-keeper, son of Gatu his
servant.' … Erech, the modern Warka, is a city at which we
know there must have been one or more libraries, for it was
from thence Assurbannipal copied the famous Isdubar series of
legends in twelve tablets, one of which contained the account
of the Deluge. Hence also came the wonderful work on magic in
more than one hundred tablets: for, as we have it, it is
nothing more than a facsimile by Assurbannipal's scribes of a
treatise which had formed part of the collection of the school
of the priests at Erech. … Larsa, now named Senkereh, was
the seat of a tablet collection that seems to have been
largely a mathematical one; for in the remains we possess of
it are tablets containing tables of squares and cube roots and
others, giving the characters for fractions. There are from
here also, however, fragments with lists of the gods, a
portion of a geographical dictionary, lists of temples, &c.
… To a library at Cutha we owe the remnants of a tablet work
containing an account of the creation and the wars of the
gods, and, among others, a very ancient terra-cotta tablet
bearing a copy of an inscription engraved in the temple of the
god Dup Lan at Cutha, by Dungi, King of Ur. The number of
tablets and cylinders found by M. de Sarzec at Zirgulla show
that there too the habit of committing so much to writing was
as rife as in other cities of whose literary character we know
more."
The Libraries of Babylonia and Assyria
(Knowledge, November 24, 1882,
and March 2, 1883).
"One of the most important results of Sir A. H. Layard's
explorations at Nineveh was the discovery of the ruined
library of the ancient city, now buried under the mounds of
Kouyunjik. The broken clay tablets belonging to this library
not only furnished the student with an immense mass of
literary matter, but also with direct aids towards a knowledge
of the Assyrian syllabary and language. Among the literature
represented in the library of Kouyunjik were lists of
characters, with their various phonetic and ideographic
meanings, tables of synonymes, and catalogues of the names of
plants and animals. This, however, was not all. The inventors
of the cuneiform system of writing had been a people who
preceded the Semites in the occupation of Babylonia, and who
spoke an agglutinative language utterly different from that of
their Semitic successors. These Accadians, as they are usually
termed, left behind them a considerable amount of literature,
which was highly prized by the Semitic Babylonians and
Assyrians. A large portion of the Ninevite tablets,
accordingly, consists of interlinear or parallel translations
from Accadian into Assyrian, as well as of reading books,
dictionaries, and grammars, in which the Accadian original is
placed by the side of its Assyrian equivalent."
A. H. Sayce,
Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
chapter 1.
LIBRARIES:
Greece.
"Pisistratus the tyrant is said to have been the first who
supplied books of the liberal sciences at Athens for public
use. Afterwards the Athenians themselves, with great care and
pains, increased their number; but all this multitude of
books, Xerxes, when he obtained possession of Athens, and
burned the whole of the city except the citadel, seized and
carried away to Persia. But king Seleucus, who was called
Nicanor, many years afterwards, was careful that all of them
should be again carried back to Athens." "That Pisistratus was
the first who collected books, seems generally allowed by
ancient writers. … In Greece were several famous libraries.
Clearchus, who was a follower of Plato, founded a magnificent
one in Heraclea. There was one in the island of Cnidos. The
books of Athens were by Sylla removed to Rome. The public
libraries of the Romans were filled with books, not of
miscellaneous literature, but were rather political and sacred
collections, consisting of what regarded their laws and the
ceremonies of their religion."
Aulus Gellius,
The Attic Nights,
book 6, chapter 17 (volume 2),
with foot-note by W. Beloe.
"If the libraries of the Greeks at all resembled in form and
dimensions those found at Pompeii, they were by no means
spacious; neither, in fact, was a great deal of room
necessary, as the manuscripts of the ancients stowed away much
closer than our modern books, and were sometimes kept in
circular boxes, of elegant form, with covers of turned wood.
The volumes consisted of rolls of parchment, sometimes purple
at the back, or papyrus, about twelve or fourteen inches in
breadth, and as many feet long as the subject required. The
pages formed a number of transverse compartments, commencing
at the left, and proceeding in order to the other extremity,
and the reader, holding in either hand one end of the
manuscript, unrolled and rolled it up as he read. Occasionally
these books were placed on shelves, in piles, with the ends
outwards, adorned with golden bosses, the titles of the
various treatises being written on pendant labels."
J. A. St. John,
The Hellenes,
volume 2, page 84.
"The learned reader need not be reminded how wide is the
difference between the ancient 'volumen,' or roll, and the
'volume' of the modern book-trade, and how much smaller the
amount of literary matter which the former may represent. Any
single 'book' or 'part' of a treatise would anciently have
been called 'volumen,' and would reckon as such in the
enumeration of a collection of books. The Iliad of Homer,
which in a modern library may form but a single volume, would
have counted as twenty-four 'volumina' at Alexandria.
{2003}
We read of authors leaving behind them works reckoned, not by
volumes or tens of volumes, but by hundreds. … It will at
once be understood that … the very largest assemblage of
'volumina' assigned as the total of the greatest of the
ancient collections would fall far short, in its real literary
contents, of the second-rate, or even third-rate collections
of the present day."
Libraries, Ancient and Modern
(Edinburgh Review,
January, 1874).
LIBRARIES:
Alexandria.
"The first of the Ptolemies, Lagus, not only endeavoured to
render Alexandria one of the most beautiful and most
commercial of cities, he likewise wished her to become the
cradle of science and philosophy. By the advice of an Athenian
emigrant, Demetrius of Phaleros, this prince established a
society of learned and scientific men, the prototype of our
academies and modern institutions. He caused that celebrated
museum to be raised, that became an ornament to the Bruchion;
and here was deposited the noble library, 'a collection,' says
Titus Livius, 'at once a proof of the magnificence of those
kings, and of their love of science.' Philadelphos, the
successor of Lagus, finding that the library of the Bruchion
already numbered 400,000 volumes, and either thinking that the
edifice could not well make room for any more, or being
desirous, from motives of jealousy, to render his name equally
famous by the construction of a similar monument, founded a
second library in the temple of Serapis, called the Serapeum,
situated at some distance from the Bruchion, in another part
of the town. These two libraries were denominated, for a
length of time, the Mother and the Daughter. During the war
with Egypt, Cæsar, having set fire to the king's fleet, which
happened to be anchored in the great port, it communicated
with the Bruchion; the parent library was consumed, and, if
any remains were rescued from the flames, they were, in all
probability, conveyed to the Serapeum. Consequently, ever
after, there can be no question but of the latter. Euergetes
and the other Ptolemies enlarged it successively; and
Cleopatra added 200,000 manuscripts at once from the library
of King Pergamos, given her by Mark Antony. … Aulus Gellius
and Ammianus Marcellus seem to insinuate that the whole of the
Alexandrian library had been destroyed by fire in the time of
Cæsar. … But both are mistaken on this point. Ammianus, in
the rest of his narrative, evidently confounds Serapeum and
Bruchion. … Suetonius (in his life of Domitian) mentions
that this emperor sent some amanuenses to Alexandria, for the
purpose of copying a quantity of books that were wanting in
his library; consequently a library existed in Alexandria a
long while after Cæsar. Besides, we know that the Serapeum was
only destroyed A. D. 301, by the order of Theodosius.
Doubtless the library suffered considerably on this
last-mentioned occasion; but that it still partly existed is
beyond a doubt, according to the testimony of Oroses, who,
twenty-four years later, made a voyage to Alexandria, and
assures us that he 'saw, in several temples, presses full of
books,' the remains of ancient libraries. … The trustworthy
Oroses, in 415, is the last witness we have of the existence
of a library at Alexandria. The numerous Christian writers of
the fifth and sixth centuries, who have handed down to us so
many trifling facts, have not said a word upon this important
subject. We, therefore, have no certain documents upon the
fate of our library from 415 to 636, or, according to others,
640, when the Arabs took possession of Alexandria—a period of
ignorance and barbarism, of war and revolutions, and vain
disputes between a hundred different sects. Now, towards A. D.
636, or 640, the troops of the caliph, Omar, headed by his
lieutenant, Amrou, took possession of Alexandria. For more
than six centuries, nobody in Europe took the trouble of
ascertaining what had become of the library of Alexandria. At
length, in the year 1660, a learned Oxford scholar, Edward
Pococke, who had been twice to the East, and had brought back
a number of Arabian manuscripts, first introduced the Oriental
history of the physician Abulfarage to the learned world, in a
Latin translation. In it we read the following passage:—'In
those days flourished John of Alexandria, whom we have
surnamed the Grammarian, and who adopted the tenets of the
Christian Jacobites. … He lived to the time when Amrou
Ebno'l-As took Alexandria. He went to visit the conqueror; and
Amrou, who was aware of the height of learning and science
that John had attained, treated him with every distinction,
and listened eagerly, to his lectures on philosophy, which
were quite new to the Arabians. Amrou was himself a man of
intellect and discernment, and very clear-headed. He retained
the learned man about his person. John one day said to him,
"You have visited all the stores of Alexandria, and you have
put your seal on all the different things you found there. I
say nothing about those treasures which have any value for
you; but, in good sooth, you might leave us those of which you
make no use." "What then is it that you want?" interrupted
Amrou. "The books of philosophy that are to be found in the
royal treasury," answered John. "I can dispose of nothing,"
Amrou then said, "without the permission of the lord of all
true believers, Omar Ebno'l-Chattab." He therefore wrote to
Omar, informing him of John's request. He received an answer
from Omar in these words. "As to the books you mention,
either, they agree with God's holy book, and then God's book
is all-sufficient without them; or they disagree with God's
book, in which case they ought not to be preserved." And, in
consequence, Amrou Ebno'l-As caused them to be distributed
amongst the different baths of the city, to serve as fuel. In
this manner they were consumed in half-a-year.' When this
account of Abulfarage's was made known in Europe, it was at
once admitted as a fact, without the least question. … Since
Pococke, another Arab historian, likewise a physician, was
discovered, who gave pretty nearly the same account. This was
Abdollatif, who wrote towards 1200, and consequently prior to
Abulfarage. … Abdollatif does not relate any of the
circumstances accessory to the destruction of the library. But
what faith can we put in a writer who tells us that he has
actually seen what could no longer have been in existence in
his time? 'I have seen;' says he, 'the portico and the college
that Alexander the Great caused to be built, and which
contained the splendid library,' &c. Now, these buildings were
situated within the Bruchion; and since the reign of Aurelian,
who had destroyed it—that is to say, at least nine hundred
years before Abdollatif—the Bruchion was a deserted spot,
covered with ruins and rubbish.
{2004}
Abulfarage, on the other hand, places the library in the Royal
Treasury; and the anachronism is just as bad. The royal
edifices were all contained within the walls of the Bruchion;
and not one of them could then be left. … As a fact is not
necessarily incontestable because advanced as such by one or
even two historians, several persons of learning and research
have doubted the truth of this assertion. Renaudot (Hist. des
Patriarches d'Alexandrie) had already questioned its
authenticity, by observing: 'This account is rather
suspicious, as is frequently the case with the Arabians.' And,
lastly, Querci, the two Assemani, Villoison, and Gibbon,
completely declared themselves against it. Gibbon at once
expresses his astonishment that two historians, both of Egypt,
should not have said a word about so remarkable an event. The
first of these is Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria, who
lived in that city 500 years after it was taken by the
Saracens, and who gives a long and detailed account, in his
Annals, both of the siege and the succeeding events; the
second is Elmacin, a most veracious writer, the author of a
History of the Saracens, and who especially relates the life
of Omar, and the taking of Alexandria, with its minutest
circumstances. Is it conceivable or to be believed that these
two historians should have been ignorant of so important a
circumstance? That two learned men who would have been deeply
interested in such a loss should have made no mention of it,
though living and writing in Alexandria—Eutychius, too, at no
distant period from the event? and that we should learn it for
the first time from a stranger who wrote, six centuries after,
on the frontiers of Media? Besides, as Gibbon observes, why
should the Caliph Omar, who was no enemy to science, have
acted, in this one instance, in direct opposition to his
character. … To these reasons may be added the remark of a
German writer, M. Reinhard, who observes that Eutychius
(Annals of Eutychius, volume ii. page 316) transcribes the
very words of the letter in which Amrou gives the Caliph Omar
an account of the taking of Alexandria after a long and
obstinate siege. 'I have carried the town by storm,' says he,
'and without any preceding offer of capitulation. I cannot
describe all the treasures it contains; suffice it to say,
that it numbers 4,000 palaces, 4,000 baths, 40,000 taxable
Jews, 400 theatres, 12,000 gardeners who sell vegetables. Your
Mussulmans demand the privilege of pillaging the city, and
sharing the booty.' Omar, in his reply, disapproves of the
request, and expressly forbids all pillage or dilapidation. It
is plain that, in his official report, Amrou seeks to
exaggerate the value of his conquest, and to magnify its
importance, like the diplomatists of our times. He does not
overlook a single hovel, nor a Jew, nor a gardener. How then
could he have forgotten the library, he who, according to
Abulfarage, was a friend to the fine arts and philosophy? …
Elmacin in turn gives us Amrou's letter nearly in the same
terms, and not one word of the library. … We … run no
great risk in drawing the conclusion, from all these premises,
that the library of the Ptolemies no longer existed in 640 at
the taking of Alexandria by the Saracens. … If it be true,
as we have every reason to think, that in 640 … the
celebrated library no longer existed, we may inquire in what
manner it had been dispersed and destroyed since 415 when
Oroses affirms that he saw it? In the first place we must
observe that Oroses only mentions some presses which he saw in
the temples. It was not, therefore, the library of the
Ptolemies as it once existed in the Serapeum. Let us call to
mind, moreover, that ever since the first Roman emperors,
Egypt had been the theatre of incessant civil warfare, and we
shall be surprised that any traces of the library could still
exist in later times."
Historical Researches on the pretended burning
of the Library of Alexandria by the Saracens
(Fraser's Magazine. April, 1844).
"After summing up the evidence we have been able to collect in
regard to these libraries, we conclude that almost all the
700,000 volumes of the earlier Alexandrian libraries had been
destroyed before the capture of the city by the Arabs; that
another of considerable size, but chiefly of Christian
literature, had been collected in the 250 years just preceding
the Arab occupation; and that Abulpharaj, in a statement that
is not literally true, gives, in the main, a correct account
of the final destruction of the Alexandrian Library."
C. W. Super,
Alexandria and its Libraries
(National Quarterly Review, December, 1875).
ALSO IN:
E. Edwards,
Memoirs of Libraries,
book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).
E. Edwards,
Libraries and the Founders of Libraries,
chapter 1.
See, also,
EDUCATION, ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA;
and ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246.
LIBRARIES:
Pergamum.
See PERGAMUM.
LIBRARIES:
Rome.
Pliny states that C. Asinius Pollio was the first who
established a Public Library in Rome. But "Lucullus was
undoubtedly before him in this claim upon the gratitude of the
lovers of books. Plutarch tells us expressly that not only was
the Library of Lucullus remarkable for its extent and for the
beauty of the volumes which composed it, but that the use he
made of them was even more to his honour than the pains he had
taken in their acquisition. The Library, he says, 'was open to
all. The Greeks who were at Rome resorted thither, as it were
to the retreat of the Muses.' It is important to notice that,
according to Pliny, the benefaction of Asinius Pollio to the
literate among the Romans was 'ex manubiis.' This expression,
conjoined with the fact that the statue of M. Varro was placed
in the Library of Pollio, has led a recent distinguished
historian of Rome under the Empire, Mr. Merivale, to suggest,
that very probably Pollio only made additions to that Library
which, as we know from Suetonius, Julius Cæsar had directed to
be formed for public use under the care of Varro. These
exploits of Pollio, which are most likely to have yielded him
the 'spoils of war,' were of a date many years subsequent to
the commission given by Cæsar to Varro. It has been usually,
and somewhat rashly perhaps, inferred that this project, like
many other schemes that were surging in that busy brain,
remained a project only. In the absence of proof either way,
may it not be reasonably conjectured that Varro's bust was
placed in the Library called Pollio's because Varro had in
truth carried out Cæsar's plan, with the ultimate concurrence
and aid of Pollio? This Library—by whomsoever formed—was
probably in the 'atrium libertatis' on the Aventine Mount.
{2005}
From Suetonius we further learn that Augustus added porticoes
to the Temple of Apollo on the Palatine Mount, with (as
appears from monumental inscriptions to those who had charge
of them) two distinct Libraries of Greek and Latin authors;
that Tiberius added to the Public Libraries the works of the
Greek poets Euphorion, Rhianus, and Parthenius,—authors whom
he especially admired and tried to imitate,—and also their
statues; that Caligula (in addition to a scheme for
suppressing Homer) had thoughts of banishing both the works
and the busts of Virgil and of Livy—characterizing the one
as a writer of no genius and of little learning, and the other
(not quite so unfortunately) as a careless and verbose
historian—from all the Libraries; and that Domitian early in
his reign restored at vast expense the Libraries in the
Capitol which had been burnt, and to this end both collected
MSS. from various countries, and sent scribes to Alexandria
expressly to copy or to correct works which were there
preserved. In addition to the Libraries mentioned by
Suetonius, we read in Plutarch of the Library dedicated by
Octavia to the memory of Marcellus; in Aulus Gellius of a
Library in the Palace of Tiberius and of another in the Temple
of Peace; and in Dion Cassius of the more famous Ulpian
Library founded by Trajan. This Library, we are told by
Vopiscus, was in his day added, by way of adornment, to the
Baths of Diocletian. Of private Libraries amongst the Romans
one of the earliest recorded is that which Emilius Paulus
found amongst the spoils of Perseus, and which he is said to
have shared between his sons. The collection of Tyrunnion,
some eighty years later (perhaps), amounted, according to a
passage in Suidas, to 30,000 volumes. That of Lucullus—which,
some will think, ought to be placed in this category—has been
mentioned already. With that—the most famous of all—which
was the delight and the pride of Cicero, every reader of his
letters has an almost personal familiarity, extending even to
the names and services of those who were employed in binding
and in placing the books. … Of the Libraries of the
long-buried cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum there is not a
scintilla of information extant, other than that which has
been gathered from their ruins. At one time great hopes were
entertained of important additions to classical learning from
remains, the discovery of which has so largely increased our
knowledge both of the arts and of the manners of the Romans.
But all effort in this direction has hitherto been either
fruitless or else only tantalizing, from the fragmentary
character of the results attained."
E. Edwards,
Memoirs of Libraries,
pages 26-29.
"Most houses had a library, which, according to Vitruvius,
ought to face the east in order to admit the light of the
morning, and to prevent the books from becoming mouldy. At
Herculaneum a library with bookcases containing 1,700 scrolls
has been discovered. The grammarian Epaphroditus possessed a
library of 30,000, and Sammanicus Serenus, the tutor of the
younger Gordian, one of 62,000 books. Seneca ridicules the
fashionable folly of illiterate men who adorned their walls
with thousands of books, the titles of which were the delight
of the yawning owner. According to Publius Victor, Rome
possessed twenty-nine public libraries, the first of which was
opened by Asinius Polio in the forecourt of the Temple of
Peace; two others were founded during the reign of Augustus,
viz., the Octavian and the Palatine libraries. Tiberius,
Vespasian, Domitian, and Trajan added to their number; the
Ulpian library, founded by the last-mentioned emperor, being
the most important of all."
E. Guhl and W. Koner,
The Life of the Greeks and Romans,
p. 531.
LIBRARIES:
Herculaneum.
"Herculaneum remained a subterranean city from the year 79 to
the year 1706. In the latter year some labourers who were
employed in digging a well came upon a statue, a circumstance
which led—not very speedily but in course of time … —to
systematic excavations. Almost half a century passed, however,
before the first roll of papyrus was discovered, near to
Portici at a depth from the surface of about 120 English feet.
In the course of a year or two, some 250 rolls—most of them
Greek—had been found. … In 1754, further and more careful
researches were made by Camillo Paderni, who succeeded in
getting together no less than 337 Greek volumes and 18 Latin
volumes. The latter were of larger dimensions than the Greek,
and in worse condition. Very naturally, great interest was
excited by these discoveries amongst scholars in all parts of
Europe. In the years 1754 and 1755 the subject was repeatedly
brought before the Royal Society by Mr. Locke and other of its
fellows, sometimes in the form of communications from Paderni
himself; at other times from the notes and observations of
travellers. In one of these papers the disinterred rolls are
described as appearing at first 'like roots of wood, all
black, and seeming to be only of one piece. One of them
falling on the ground, it broke in the middle, and many
letters were observed, by which it was first known that the
rolls were of papyrus. … They were in wooden cases, so much
burnt, … that they cannot be recovered.' … At the
beginning of the present century the attention of the British
government was, to some extent, attracted to this subject. …
Leave was at length obtained from the Neapolitan government
for a literary mission to Herculaneum, which was entrusted to
Mr. Hayter, one of the chaplains to the Prince Regent. But the
results were few and unsatisfactory. … The Commission
subsequently entrusted to Dr. Sickler of Hildburghausen was
still more unfortunate. … In 1818, a committee of the House
of Commons was appointed to inquire into the matter. It
reported that, after an expenditure of about £1,100, no useful
results had been attained. This inquiry and the experiments of
Sickler led Sir Humphrey Davy to investigate the subject, and
to undertake two successive journeys into Italy for its
thorough elucidation. His account of his researches is highly
interesting. … 'My experiments,' says Sir Humphrey Davy, …
'soon convinced me that the nature of these MSS. had been
generally misunderstood; that they had not, as is usually
supposed, been carbonized by the operation of fire, … but
were in a state analogous to peat or Bovey coal, the leaves
being generally cemented into one mass by a peculiar substance
which had formed during the fermentation and chemical change
of the vegetable matter comprising them, in a long course of
ages. The nature of this substance being known, the
destruction of it became a subject of obvious chemical
investigation; and I was fortunate enough to find means of
accomplishing this, without injuring the characters or
destroying the texture of the MSS.' These means Sir Humphrey
Davy has described very minutely in his subsequent
communications to the Royal Society.
{2006}
Briefly, they may be said to have consisted in a mixture of a
solution of glue with alcohol, enough to gelatinize it,
applied by a camel's hair brush, for the separation of the
layers. The process was sometimes assisted by the agency of
ether, and the layers were dried by the action of a stream of
air warmed gradually up to the temperature of boiling water.
'After the chemical operation, the leaves of most of the
fragments separated perfectly from each other, and the Greek
characters were in a high degree distinct. … The MSS. were
probably on shelves of wood, which were broken down when the
roofs of the houses yielded to the weight of the
superincumbent mass. Hence, many of them were crushed and
folded in a moist state, and the leaves of some pressed
together in a perpendicular direction … in confused heaps;
in these heaps the exterior MSS. … must have been acted on
by the water; and as the ancient ink was composed of finely
divided charcoal suspended in a solution of glue or gum,
wherever the water percolated continuously, the characters
were more or less erased.' … Sir Humphrey Davy proceeds to
state that, according to the information given him, the number
of MSS. and fragments of MSS. originally deposited in the
Naples Museum was 1,696; that of these 88 had then been
unrolled and found to be legible; that 319 others had been
operated upon, and more or less unrolled, but were illegible;
that 24 had been sent abroad as presents; and that of the
remaining 1,265—which he had carefully examined—the majority
were either small fragments, or MSS. so crushed and mutilated
as to offer little hope of separation; whilst only from 80 to
120 offered a probability of success (and he elsewhere
adds:—'this estimate, as my researches proceeded, appeared
much too high'). … 'Of the 88 unrolled MSS. … the great
body consists of works of Greek philosophers or sophists; nine
are of Epicurus; thirty-two bear the name of Philodemus, three
of Demetrius, one of each of these authors:—Colotes,
Polystratus, Carneades, Chrysippus; and the subjects of these
works, … and of those the authors of which are unknown, are
either Natural or Moral Philosophy, Medicine, Criticism, and
general observations on Arts, Life, and Manners.'"
E. Edwards,
Memoirs of Libraries,
volume 1, book 1, chapter 5.
LIBRARIES:
Constantinople.
"When Constantine the Great, in the year 336, made Byzantium
the seat of his empire, he in a great measure newly built the
city, decorated it with numerous splendid edifices, and called
it after his own name. Desirous of making reparation to the
Christians, for the injuries they had sustained during the
reign of his tyrannical predecessor, this prince commanded the
most diligent search to be made after those books which had been
doomed to destruction. He caused transcripts to be made of
such books as had escaped the Diocletian persecution; to these
he added others, and with the whole formed a valuable Library
at Constantinople. On the death of Constantine, the number of
books contained in the Imperial Library was only six thousand
nine hundred; but it was successively enlarged by the
emperors, Julian and Theodosius the younger, the latter of
whom augmented it to one hundred thousand volumes. Of these,
more than half were burnt in the seventh century, by command
of the emperor Leo III., in order to destroy all the monuments
that might be quoted in proof against his opposition to the
worship of images. In this library was deposited the only
authentic copy of the Council of Nice: it has also been
asserted that the works of Homer, written in golden letters,
were consumed at the same time, together with a magnificent
copy of the Four Gospels, bound in plates of gold to the
weight of fifteen pounds, and enriched with precious stones.
The convulsions that weakened the lower empire, were by no
means favourable to the interests of literature. During the
reign of Constantine Porphyrogennetus (in the eleventh entry)
literature flourished for a short time: and he is said to have
employed many learned Greeks in collecting books for a library,
the arrangement of which he superintended himself. The final
subversion of the Eastern Empire, and the capture of
Constantinople by Mohammed II., A. D. 1453, dispersed the
literati of Greece over Western Europe: but the Imperial
Library was preserved by the express command of the conqueror,
and continued to be kept in some apartments of the Seraglio;
until Mourad (or Amurath) IV., in a fit of devotion,
sacrificed (as it is reported) all the books in this Library
to his hatred against the Christians."
T. H. Horne,
Introduction to the Study of Bibliography,
pages 23-25.
LIBRARIES:
Tripoli.
Destruction of Library by Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.
LIBRARIES:
Mediæval.
Monastic Libraries.
"In every monastery there was established first a library,
then great studios, where, to increase the number of books,
skilful caligraphers transcribed manuscripts; and finally,
schools, open to all those who had need of, or desire for,
instruction. At Montierender, at Lorsch, at Corvey, at Fulda,
at St. Gall, at Reichenau, at Nonantula, at Monte Cassino, at
Wearmouth, at St. Albans, at Croyland, there were famous
libraries. At St. Michael, at Luneburg, there were two—one
for the abbot and one for the monks. In other abbeys, as at
Hirschau, the abbot himself took his place in the Scriptorium,
where many other monks were occupied in copying manuscripts.
At St. Riquier, books bought for high prices, or transcribed
with the utmost care, were regarded as the most valuable
jewels of the monastery. 'Here,' says the chronicler of the
abbey, counting up with innocent pride the volumes which it
contained—'here are the riches of the cloister, the treasures
of the celestial life, which fatten the soul by their
sweetness. This is how we fulfil the excellent precept, Love
the study of the Scriptures, and you will not love vice.' If
we were called upon to enumerate the principal centres of
learning in this century, we should be obliged to name nearly
all the great abbeys whose founders we have mentioned, for
most of them were great homes of knowledge. … The principal
and most constant occupation of the learned Benedictine nuns
was the transcription of manuscripts. It can never be known
how many services to learning and history were rendered by
their delicate hands throughout the middle ages. They brought
to the work a dexterity, an elegance, and an assiduity which
the monks themselves could not attain, and we owe to them some
of the most beautiful specimens of the marvellous caligraphy of
the period. … Nuns, therefore, were the rivals of monks in
the task of enlarging and fertilising the field of Catholic
learning.
{2007}
Every one is aware that the copying of manuscripts was one of
the habitual occupations of monks. By it they fed the
claustral libraries already spoken of, and which are the
principal source of modern knowledge. Thus we must again refer
to the first beginning of the Monastic Orders to find the
earliest traces of a custom which from that time was, as it
were, identified with the practices of religious life. In the
depths of the Thebaïde, in the primitive monasteries of
Tabenna, every house … had its library. There is express
mention made of this in the rule of St. Benedict. … In the
seventh century, St. Benedict Biscop, founder and abbot of
Wearmouth in England, undertook five sea-voyages to search for
and purchase books for his abbey, to which each time he
brought back a large cargo. In the ninth century, Loup of
Ferrières transformed his monastery of St. Josse-sur-Mer into
a kind of depot for the trade in books which was carried on
with England. About the same time, during the wars which
ravaged Lombardy, most of the literary treasures which are now
the pride of the Ambrosian library were being collected in the
abbey of Bobbio. The monastery of Pomposa, near Ravenna, had,
according to contemporaries, a finer library than those of
Rome or of any other town in the world. In the eleventh
century, the library of the abbey of Croyland numbered 3,000
volumes. The library of Novalese had 6,700, which the monks
saved at the risk of their lives when their abbey was
destroyed by the Saracens in 905. Hirschau contained an
immense number of manuscripts. But, for the number and value
of its books, Fulda eclipsed all the monasteries of Germany,
and perhaps of the whole Christian world. On the other hand,
some writers assure us that Monte Cassino, under the Abbot
Didier, the friend of Gregory VII., possessed the richest
collection which it was possible to find. The libraries thus
created by the labours of monks became, as it were, the
intellectual arsenals of princes and potentates. … There
were also collections of books in all the cathedrals, in all
the collegiate churches, and in many of the castles. Much has
been said of the excessive price of certain books during the
middle ages: Robertson and his imitators, in support of this
theory, are fond of quoting the famous collection of homilies
that Grecia Countess of Anjou bought, in 1056, for two hundred
sheep, a measure of wheat, one of millet, one of rye, several
marten-skins, and four pounds of silver. An instance like this
always produces its effect; but these writers forgot to say
that the books bought for such high prices were admirable
specimens of caligraphy, of painting, and of carving. It would
be just as reasonable to quote the exorbitant sums paid at
sales by bibliomaniacs of our days, in order to prove that
since the invention of printing, books have been excessive in
price. Moreover, the ardent fondness of the Countess Grecia
for beautiful books had been shared by other amateurs of a
much earlier date. Bede relates that Alfred, King of
Northumbria in the seventh century, gave eight hides of land
to St. Benedict Biscop in exchange for a Cosmography which
that book-loving abbot had bought at Rome. The monks loved
their books with a passion which has never been surpassed in
modern times. … It is an error to … suppose that books of
theology or piety alone filled the libraries of the monks.
Some enemies of the religious orders have, indeed, argued that
this was the case; but the proof of the contrary is evident in
all documents relating to the subject. The catalogues of the
principal monastic libraries during those centuries which
historians regard as most barbarous, are still in existence;
and these catalogues amply justify the sentence of the great
Leibnitz, when he said, 'Books and learning were preserved by
the monasteries.' It is acknowledged that if, on one hand, the
Benedictines settled in Iceland collected the Eddas and the
principal traditions of the Scandinavian mythology, on the
other all the monuments of Greece and Rome which escaped the
devastations of barbarians were saved by the monks of Italy,
France, and Germany, and by them alone. And if in some
monasteries the scarcity of parchment and the ignorance of the
superiors permitted the destruction, by copyists, of a certain
small number of precious works, how can we forget that without
these same copyists we should possess nothing—absolutely
nothing—of classic antiquity? … Alcuin enumerates among the
books in the library at York the works of Aristotle, Cicero,
Pliny, Virgil, Statius, Lucan, and of Trogus Pompeïus. In his
correspondence with Charlemagne he quotes Ovid, Horace,
Terence, and Cicero, acknowledging that in his youth he had
been more moved by the tears of Dido than by the Psalms of
David."
Count de Montalembert,
The Monks of the West,
book 18, chapter 4 (volume 6).
"It is in the great houses of the Benedictine Order that we
find the largest libraries, such as in England at Bury St.
Edmund's, Glastonbury, Peterborough, Heading, St. Alban's,
and, above all, that of Christ Church in Canterbury, probably
the earliest library formed in England. Among the other
English monasteries of the libraries of which we still possess
catalogues or other details, are St. Peter's at York,
described in the eighth century by Alcuin, St. Cuthbert's at
Durham, and St. Augustine's at Canterbury. At the dissolution
of the monasteries their libraries were dispersed, and the
basis of the great modern libraries is the volumes thus
scattered over England. In general, the volumes were disposed
much as now, that is to say, upright, and in large cases
affixed to a wall, often with doors. The larger volumes at
least were in many cases chained, so that they could only be
used within about six feet of their proper place; and since
the chain was always riveted on the fore-edge of one of the
sides of a book, the back of the volume had to be thrust first

into the shelf, leaving the front edge of the leaves exposed
to view. Many old volumes bear a mark in ink on this front
edge; and when this is the case, we may be sure that it was
once chained in a library; and usually a little further
investigation will disclose the mark of a rivet on one of the
sides. Regulations were carefully made to prevent the mixture
of different kinds of books, and their overcrowding or
inconvenient position; while an organized system of lending
was in vogue, by which at least once a year, and less formally
at shorter intervals, the monks could change or renew the
volumes already on loan. … Let us take an example of the
arrangement of a monastic library of no special distinction in
A. D. 1400,—that at Titchfield Abbey,—describing it in the
words of the register of the monastery itself, only
translating the Latin into English.
{2008}
'The arrangement of the library of the monastery of Tychefeld
is this:—There are in the library of Tychefeld four cases
(columnae) in which to place books, of which two, the first
and second, are on the eastern face; on the southern face is
the third, and on the northern face the fourth. And each of
them has eight shelves (gradus), marked with a letter and
number affixed on the front of each shelf, that is to say, on
the lower board of each of the aforesaid shelves; certain
letters, however, are excepted, namely A, H, K, L, M, O, P, Q,
which have no numbers affixed, because all the volumes to
which one of those letters belongs are contained in the shelf
to which that letter is assigned. [That is, the shelves with
the letters A, H, K, etc., have a complete class of books in
each, and in no case does that class overflow into a second
shelf, so there was no need of marking these shelves with
numbers as well as letters, in the way in which the rest were
marked. Thus we should find 'B 1,' 'B 2,' 'B 3,' … 'B 7,'
because B filled seven shelves; but 'A' only, because A filled
one shelf alone.] So all and singular the volumes of the said
library are fully marked on the first leaf and elsewhere on
the shelf belonging to the book, with certain numbered
letters. And in order that what is in the library may be more
quickly found, the marking of the shelves of the said library,
the inscriptions in the books, and the references in the
register, in all points agree with each other. Anno Domini
MCCCC.' … Titchfield Abbey was a Præmonstratensian house,
founded in the thirteenth century, and never specially rich or
prominent; yet we find it with a good library of sixty-eight
books in theology, thirty-nine in Canon and Civil Law,
twenty-nine in Medicine, thirty-seven in Arts, and in all
three hundred and twenty-six volumes, many containing several
treatises, so that the total number of works was considerably
over a thousand."
F. Madan,
Books in Manuscript,
pp. 76-79.
LIBRARIES:
Renaissance.
Italy.
On the revival of learning in Italy, "scarcity of books was at
first a chief impediment to the study of antiquity. Popes and
princes and even great religious institutions possessed far
fewer books than many farmers of the present age. The library
belonging to the Cathedral Church of S. Martino at Lucca in
the ninth century contained only nineteen volumes of
abridgements from ecclesiastical commentaries. The Cathedral
of Novara in 1212 could boast copies of Boethius, Priscian,
the Code of Justinian, the Decretals, and the Etymology of
Isidorus, besides a Bible and some devotional treatises. This
slender stock passed for great riches. Each of the precious
volumes in such a collection was an epitome of mediæval art.
Its pages were composed of fine vellum adorned with pictures.
The initial letters displayed elaborate flourishes and
exquisitely illuminated groups of figures. The scribe took
pains to render his caligraphy perfect, and to ornament the
margins with crimson, gold, and blue. Then he handed the
parchment sheets to the binder, who encased them in rich
settings of velvet or carved ivory and wood, embossed with
gold and precious stones. The edges were gilt and stamped with
patterns. The clasps were of wrought silver chased with
niello. The price of such masterpieces was enormous. … Of
these MSS. the greater part were manufactured in the
cloisters, and it was here too that the martyrdom of ancient
authors took place. Lucretius and Livy gave place to
chronicles, antiphonaries, and homilies. Parchment was
extremely dear, and the scrolls which nobody could read might
be scraped and washed. Accordingly, the copyist erased the
learning of the ancients, and filled the fair blank space he
gained with litanies. At the same time it is but just to the
monks to add that palimpsests have occasionally been found in
which ecclesiastical works have yielded place to copies of the
Latin poets used in elementary education. Another obstacle to
the diffusion of learning was the incompetence of the
copyists. It is true that at the great universities
'stationarii,' who supplied the text-books in use to students,
were certified and subjected to the control of special censors
called 'Preciani.' Yet their number was not large, and when
they quitted the routine to which they were accustomed their
incapacity betrayed itself by numerous errors. Petrarch's
invective against the professional copyists shows the depth to
which the art had sunk. 'Who,' he exclaims, 'will discover a
cure for the ignorance and vile sloth of these copyists, who
spoil everything and turn it to nonsense? If Cicero, Livy, and
other illustrious ancients were to return to life, do you
think they would understand their own works? There is no check
upon these copyists, selected without examination or test of
their capacity.' … At the same time the copyists formed a
necessary and flourishing class of craftsmen. They were well
paid. … Under these circumstances it was usual for even the
most eminent scholars, like Petrarch, Boccaccio, and Poggio,
to make their own copies of MSS. Niccolo de' Niccoli
transcribed nearly the whole of the codices that formed the
nucleus of the Library of the Mark. … It is clear that the
first step toward the revival of learning implied three
things: first, the collection of MSS. wherever they could be
saved from the indolence of the monks; secondly, the formation
of libraries for their preservation; and, thirdly, the
invention of an art whereby they might be multiplied cheaply,
conveniently, and accurately. The labour involved in the
collection of classical manuscripts had to be performed by a
few enthusiastic scholars, who received no help from the
universities and their academical scribes, and who met with no
sympathy in the monasteries they were bent on ransacking. …
The monks performed at best the work of earthworms, who
unwittingly preserve fragments of Greek architecture from
corrosion by heaping mounds of mould and rubbish round them.
Meanwhile the humanists went forth with the instinct of
explorers to release the captives and awake the dead. From the
convent libraries of Italy, from the museums of
Constantinople, from the abbeys of Germany and Switzerland and
France, the slumbering spirits of the ancients had to be
evoked. … This work of discovery began with Petrarch. … It
was carried on by Boccaccio. The account given by Benvenuto da
Imola of Boccaccio's visit to Monte Cassino brings vividly
before us both the ardour of these first explorers and the
apathy of the Benedictines (who have sometimes been called the
saviours of learning) with regard to the treasures of their
own libraries. …
{2009}
'Desirous of seeing the collection of books, which he
understood to be a very choice one, he modestly asked a
monk—for he was always most courteous in manners—to open the
library, as a favour, for him. The monk answered stiffly,
pointing to a steep staircase, "Go up; it is open." Boccaccio
went up gladly; but he found that the place which held so
great a treasure was without door or key. He entered, and saw
grass sprouting on the windows, and all the books and benches
thick with dust. In his astonishment he began to open and turn
the leaves of first one tome and then another, and found many
and divers volumes of ancient and foreign works. Some of them
had lost several sheets; others were snipped and pared all
round the text, and mutilated in various ways. At length,
lamenting that the toil and study of so many illustrious men
should have passed into the hands of most abandoned wretches,
he departed with tears and sighs. Coming to the cloister, he
asked a monk whom he met, why those valuable books had been so
disgracefully mangled. He answered that the monks, seeking to
gain a few soldi, were in the habit of cutting off sheets and
making psalters, which they sold to boys. The margins too they
manufactured into charms, and sold to women.' … What Italy
contained of ancient codices soon saw the light. The visit of
Poggio Bracciolini to Constance (1414) opened up for Italian
scholars the stores that lay neglected in transalpine
monasteries. … The treasures he unearthed at Reichenau,
Weingarten, and above all S. Gallen, restored to Italy many
lost masterpieces of Latin literature, and supplied students
with full texts of authors who had hitherto been known in
mutilated copies. The account he gave of his visit to S.
Gallen in a Latin letter to a friend is justly celebrated. …
'In the middle [he says] of a well-stocked library, too large
to catalogue at present, we discovered Quintilian, safe as yet
and sound, though covered with dust and filthy with neglect
and age. The books, you must know, were not housed according
to their worth, but were lying in a most foul and obscure
dungeon at the very bottom of a tower, a place into which
condemned criminals would hardly have been thrust; and I am
firmly persuaded that if anyone would but explore those
ergastula of the barbarians wherein they incarcerate such men,
we should meet with like good fortune in the case of many
whose funeral orations have long ago been pronounced. Besides
Quintilian, we exhumed the three first books and a half of the
fourth book of the Argonautica of Flaccus, and the
Commentaries of Asconius Pedianus upon eight orations of
Cicero.' … Never was there a time in the world's history
when money was spent more freely upon the collection and
preservation of MSS., and when a more complete machinery was
put in motion for the sake of securing literary treasures."
J. A. Symonds,
Renaissance in Italy: The Revival of Learning,
chapter 3.
LIBRARIES: Modern.
Europe: Rise and growth of the greater Libraries.
In a work entitled "Essai Statistique sur les Bibliothèques de
Vienne," published in 1835, M. Adrien Balbi entered into an
examination of the literary and numerical value of the
principal libraries of ancient and modern times. M. Balbi, in
this work, shows that "the Imperial Library of Vienna,
regularly increasing from the epoch of its formation, by means
equally honorable to the sovereign and to the nation, held,
until the French revolution, the first place among the
libraries of Europe. Since that period, several other
institutions have risen to a much higher numerical rank. …
No one of the libraries of the first class, now in existence,
dates beyond the fifteenth century. The Vatican, the origin of
which has been frequently carried back to the days of St.
Hilarius, in 465, cannot, with any propriety, be said to have
deserved the name of library before the reign of Martin the
Fifth, by whose order it was removed from Avignon to Rome in
1417. And even then, a strict attention to the force of the
term would require us to withhold from it this title, until
the period of its final organization by Nicholas the Fifth, in
1447. It is difficult to speak with certainty concerning the
libraries, whether public or private, which are supposed to
have existed previous to the fifteenth century, both on
account of the doubtful authority and indefiniteness of the
passages in which they are mentioned, and the custom which so
readily obtained, in those dark ages, of dignifying every
petty collection with the name of library. But many libraries
of the fifteenth century being still in existence, and others
having been preserved long enough to make them the subject of
historical inquiry before their dissolution, it becomes easier
to fix, with satisfactory accuracy, the date of their
foundation. We find accordingly, that, including the Vatican,
and the libraries of Vienna, Ratisbon, and the Laurentian of
Florence, which are a few years anterior to it, no less than
ten were formed between the years 1430 and 1500. The increase
of European libraries has generally been slowly progressive,
although there have been periods of sudden augmentation in
nearly all. Most of them began with a small number of
manuscripts, sometimes with a few printed volumes, and often
without any. To these, gradual accessions were made, from the
different sources, which have always been more or less at the
command of the sovereigns and nobles of Europe. In 1455, the
Vatican contained 5,000 manuscripts. … Far different was the
progress of the Royal Library of Paris. The origin of this
institution is placed in the year 1595, the date of its
removal from Fontainebleau to Paris by order of Henry the
Fourth. In 1660, it contained but 1,435 printed volumes. In
the course of the following year, this number was raised to
16,746, both printed volumes and manuscripts. During the
ensuing eight years the library was nearly doubled; and before
the close of the next century, it was supposed to have been
augmented by upwards of 100,000 volumes more."
G. W. Greene,
Historical Studies,
pages 278-281.
"The oldest of the great libraries of printed books is
probably that of Vienna, which dates from 1440, and is said to
have been opened to the public as early as 1575. The Town
Library of Ratisbon dates from 1430; St. Mark's Library at
Venice, from 1468; the Town Library of Frankfort, from 1484;
that of Hamburg, from 1529; of Strasburg, from 1531; of
Augsburg, from 1537; those of Berne and Geneva, from 1550;
that of Basel, from 1564. The Royal Library of Copenhagen was
founded about 1550. In 1671 it possessed 10,000 volumes; in
1748, about 65,000; in 1778, 100,000; in 1820, 300,000; and it
now contains 410,000 volumes. The National Library of Paris was
founded in 1595, but was not made public until 1737. In 1640
it contained about 17,000 volumes; in 1684, 50,000; in 1775,
150,000; in 1790, 200,000."
E. Edwards,
A Statistical View of the Principal Public Libraries in
Europe and the United States Of America,
(Journal of the Statistical Society, August., 1848).
{2010}
LIBRARIES: Modern.
Germany.
According to "Minerva" (the "Year-book of the Learned World"),
for 1893-94, the Royal Library at Berlin contains 850,000
printed books and 24,622 manuscripts; the Münich University
Library, 370,000 books and 50,000 pamphlets, including 2,101
incunabula; the Leipsic University Library, 500,000 printed
books, and 4,000 manuscripts; Heidelberg University Library,
400,000 bound volumes (including 1,000 incunabula), and
175,000 pamphlets and "dissertationen," with a large
collection of manuscripts; Dresden Royal Public Library,
300,000 printed books (including 2,000 incunabula), 6,000
manuscripts, and 20,000 maps; Freiburg University Library,
250,000 volumes and over 500 manuscripts; Königsberg
University Library, 220,000 volumes and 1,100 manuscripts;
Tübingen University Library, 300,000 volumes and 3,500
manuscripts; Jena University Library, 200,000 volumes and
100,000 "dissertationen"; Halle University Library, 182,000
books and 800 manuscripts, besides 12,800 books, 35,000
pamphlets and 1,040 manuscripts in the Ponickausche
Bibliothek, which is united with the University Library;
Hamburg City Library, about 500,000 printed books and 5,000
manuscripts; Frankfort City Library (April, 1893), 326,139
volumes; Cologne City Library, 105,000 volumes, including
2,000 incunabula; Augsburg City and Provincial Library, about
200,000 volumes (including 1,760 incunabula) and 2,000
manuscripts; Göttingen University Library, 456,000 volumes of
books and 5,300 manuscripts; Gotha Public Library, 200,000
printed books, including 1,029 incunabula, and 7,037
manuscripts, of which 3,500 are oriental; Greifswald
University Library, 143 volumes of printed books and about 800
manuscripts; Bamberg Royal Public Library, 300,000 volumes,
3,132 manuscripts; Berlin University Library, 142,129 volumes;
Bonn University Library, 219,000 volumes, including 1,235
incunabula, and 1,273 manuscripts; Bremen City Library,
120,000 volumes; Breslau University Library, 300,000 volumes,
including about 2,500 incunabula, and about 3,000 manuscripts;
Breslau City Library, 150,000 volumes and 3,000 manuscripts;
Erlangen University Library, 180,000 volumes; Hanover Royal
Public Library, 180,000 books and 3,500 manuscripts; Hanover
City Library, 47,000 volumes; Carlsruhe Grand-ducal Library,
159,842 books and 3,754 manuscripts; Kiel University Library,
217,039 volumes, 2,375 manuscripts; Colmar City Library,
80,000 volumes; Marburg University Library, 150,000 volumes;
Strasburg University Library, 700,000 volumes; Strasburg City
Library, 90,000 volumes; Weimar Grand-ducal Library, 223,000
volumes and 2,000 manuscripts; Würzburg University Library,
300,000 volumes.
Minerva, 1893-94.
"The Munich library, … in matter of administration,
resembles the British Museum. Here one finds carefully
catalogued that great wealth of material that appears only in
doctorate theses, and for this reason is most valuable to the
historic student. No tedious formalities are insisted upon,
and orders for books are not subjected to long delays. The
Vienna library moves slowly, as though its machinery were
retarded by the weight of its royal imperial name. The
catalogue is not accessible, the attendants are not anxious to
please, and the worker feels no special affection for the
institution. But at the royal library of Berlin there exists
an opposite state of affairs—with the catalogue at hand one
can readily give the information needful in filling up the
call card. This being a lending library, one occasionally
meets with disappointment, but, as the privilege of borrowing
is easily had, this feature can have a compensatory side. The
most marked peculiarity found here is the periodic delivery of
books. All books ordered before nine o'clock are delivered at
eleven; those before eleven, at one; those before one, at
three; and those after three are delivered the same day if
possible. This causes some delay, but as soon as the rule is
known it has no drawback for the continuous user, and for the
benefit of one who wants only a single order there is placed
at the outer door of the building a box into which one can
deposit the call card, and returning at the proper time find
the book waiting in the reading room above. This saves the
climbing of many steps, and enables one to perform other
duties between ordering and receiving. As far as I know, here
alone does one purchase the call cards, but as the price is
only twenty cents per hundred the cost is not an important
item."
J. H. Gore,
Library Facilities for Study in Europe
(Educational Review, June, 1893).
In Berlin, "the report of the city government for 1889-00
reckons 25 public free libraries; 334,837 books were read by
14,900 persons, i. e., 17,219 volumes less than last year. The
expenses were 26,490 marks, the allowance from the city
treasury 23,400 marks [less than $6,000]."
The Library Journal, May, 1892.
LIBRARIES: France:
The Bibliothèque Nationale.
"The history of the vast collection of books which is now,
after many wanderings, definitely located in the Rue de
Richelieu, divides itself naturally into three periods, which,
for the sake of convenience, may well be called by three of
the names under which the Library has, at different times,
been known. The first period is that in which the Library was
nothing more than the private collection of each successive
sovereign of France, which sometimes accompanied him in his
journeys, and but too often, as in the case of King John, or
that of Charles VII., shared in his misfortunes; it was then
fitly called the 'Bibliothèque du Roi.' This period may be
considered as ending in the time of Henry IV., who transferred
the royal collection from Fontainebleau to Paris, and gave it
a temporary home in the College de Clermont. Although its
abode has often been changed since, it has never again been
attached to a royal palace, or been removed from the capital.
The second period dates from this act of Henry the Fourth's,
and extends down to the Revolution of 1780, during which time
the Library, although open with but slight restrictions to all
men of letters who were well recommended, and to the general
public for two days a week, from the year 1692, was not
regarded as national property, but as an appendage of the
Crown, which was indeed graciously opened to the learned, but
was only national property in the same sense that the Queen's
private library at Windsor is national property.
{2011}
Although still called the Bibliothèque du Roi during this
period, it may well be here spoken of, for the sake of
distinction, as the Bibliothèque Royale down to the
Revolution. In 1791, the King's library was proclaimed
national property, and it was decreed that it should
henceforth be called 'Bibliothèque Nationale,' which name it
bore till the coronation of Napoleon as Emperor of the French,
in 1805, when it was styled 'Bibliothèque Impériale.' Of
course it was Bibliothèque Royale again in 1815, 'Nationale'
in 1848, and once again, in 1852, was declared to be the
'Bibliothèque Impériale.'"
Imperial Library of Paris
(Westminster Review, April, 1870).
After the fall of the Second Empire, the great library again
became "Nationale" in name. According to a report made in the
spring of 1894, the Bibliothèque Nationale of France
contained, at the end of the previous year, 1,934,154
"'numbers,' forming at least 2,600,000 volumes." This report
was made by a committee of twenty persons, appointed to
consider the advisability and method of printing the catalogue
of the library. The conclusions of the committee are favorable
to the printing of the catalogue.
The Nation,
May 17, 1894.
Books come to the National Library "in three ways: from (1)
gifts, about 3,000 a year; … (2) purchase, 4,500 (the
library has $20,000 a year to spend on books and binding); (3)
copyright, 22,000 articles and 6,000 pieces of music. The
printer, not the publisher, is bound to make the deposit, so
that if the text and the illustrations are printed at
different places there is a chance, unless everyone is
careful, that the library will have an imperfect copy. But the
greatest trouble comes from periodicals, of which the
Bibliothèque Nationale receives 3,000. What would some of our
librarians think of this who are inclined to boast or to
lament that they receive 300? Every number of every newspaper
in France must be received, sent for if it fails to come,
registered, put on its pile, and at the end of the year tied
up in a bundle and put away (for only the most important are
bound). … The titles of new books are printed in a bulletin
in two series, French and Foreign (causing a printer's bill of
5,000 francs a year). This began in 1875 for the foreign, and
in 1882 for the French. These bulletins are cut up and the
titles mounted on slips, which are fastened in a Leyden
binder, three making a small folio page. The result is a
series of 900 volumes, less easy to consult than a good card
catalog, very much less easy than the British Museum pasted
catalog, the Rudolph books, or the Rudolph machine. … The
books received at the Bibliothèque Nationale before 1875 and
1882 are entered on some 2,000,000 slips, which are divided
between two catalogs, that of the old library ('fonds
ancien'), and of the intermediate library ('fonds
intermédiarie'). In each of these catalogs they are arranged
in series according to the subject divisions given above and
under each subject alphabetically. There is no author catalog
and the public are not allowed to consult these catalogs. If
then a reader asks for a work received before 1875 the
attendant guesses in which 'fonds' it is and what subject it
treats of; if he does not find it where he looks first he
tries some other division. No wonder it takes on an average
half an hour for the reader to get his book. I must bear
witness to the great skill which necessity has developed in
the officials charged with this work. Some of their successes
in bringing me out-of-the-way books were marvellous. On the
other hand, when they reported certain works not in the
library I did not feel at all sure that they were right, and I
dare say they doubted themselves. All this will be changed
when the library gets a printed alphabetical catalog of
authors and has made from it a pasted alphabetical catalog of
subjects. The author catalog, by the way, is expected to fill
40,000 double-columned quarto pages. … The library now has
50 kilometres (31 miles) of shelves and is full. A new
store-house is needed and a public reading room ('salle de
lecture'), which can be lighted by electricity, and be opened,
like the British Museum, in the evening."
C. A. Cutter,
Notes on the Bibliothèque Nationale
(Library Journal, June, 1894).
LIBRARIES: France:
Paris Municipal Libraries.
"The Bibliothèques Municipales de Paris have undergone a rapid
development within the last few years. In 1878 there were only
nine altogether, of which five were little used, and four
practically unused. A special Bureau was then appointed by the
Municipal Council to take charge of them, with the result that
altogether 22 libraries have been opened, while the number of
volumes lent rose from 29,339 in 1878 to 57,840 in 1879, to
147,567 in 1880, to 242,738 in 1881, and to 363,322 in 1882.
… A sum of 3,050 francs is placed at the disposal of each
library by the Municipal Council, which is thus appropriated;
Books and Binding, Fr. 1,750; Librarian, 1,000; Attendant,
300. The amount of the sums thus voted by the Municipal
Council in the year 1883 was 110,150 fr. For the year of 1884
the sum of 171,700 fr. has been voted, the increase being
intended to provide for the establishment of fifteen new
libraries in Communal Schools, as well as for the growing
requirements of some of the libraries already established. The
individual libraries are not, of course, as yet very
considerable in point of numbers. The stock possessed by the
twenty-two Bibliothèques Municipales in 1882 was 87,831
volumes, of which 20,411 had been added during that year.
Information received since the publication of M. Dardenne's
Report places the number in 1883 at 98,843 volumes. … The
libraries are open to the public gratuitously every evening
from 8 to 10 o'clock, and are closed on five days only during
the whole year. Books may be read in the library or are lent
out for home use. … Music is lent as well as books, the
experiment having been first tried at the Mairie of the second
arrondissement, in 1879, and having proved so successful that
nine arrondissements have followed suit, and the total number
of musical issues from the ten libraries in 1882 was 9,085.
… Beside these libraries under the direction of the Mairies,
there are a certain number of popular free libraries
established and supported by voluntary efforts. Without
dwelling upon the history of these libraries, all of which
have been formed since 1860, it may be stated that there are
now fourteen such libraries in as many arrondissements."
E. C. Thomas,
The Popular Libraries of Paris
(Library Chronicle, volume 1, 1884, pages 13-14).
{2012}
"The Journal Officiel' contains in the number for August 29,
of this year (1891), the substance of the following account:
… The city of Paris has now 64 public libraries, all of
which send out books and accommodate readers in their halls;
they are open at the times when the factories and shops are
closed. … The libraries are kept in the mayoralty buildings
or ward district school-houses; a central office provides for
the administration and support, while in each precinct a
committee of superintendence attends to the choice and
ordering of new accessions. All expenses are paid by the city,
which, in its last budget, in 1890, appropriated therefor the
trifle of 225,000 francs. On every library in full use are
bestowed yearly about 2,400 francs, while 14,000 francs are
employed in founding new ones. The number of books circulated
in 1890 was 1,386,642, against 29,339 in 1878, in the nine
libraries then existing. In 1878 there was an average of only
3,259 readers for each library, and in the last year the
average was 23,500, which shows a seven-fold use of the
libraries."
Public Libraries in Paris;
translated from the Börsenblatt,
October 7, 1891
(Library Journal, May, 1892).
LIBRARIES: France:
Other Libraries.
A library of importance in Paris second only to the great
National is the Mazarin, which contains 300,000 volumes (1,000
incunabula), and 5,800 manuscripts. The Library of the
University has 141,678 volumes; the Library of the Museum of
Natural History has 140,850 books and 2,050 manuscripts; the
Sainte-Genevieve Library contains 120,000 volumes and 2,392
manuscripts; the Library of the City of Paris, 90,000 volumes
and 2,000 manuscripts. The principal libraries of the
provincial cities are reported as follows: Caen Municipal
Library, 100,000 volumes, 620 manuscripts; Dijon Municipal
Library, 100,000 volumes, 1,558 manuscripts; Marseilles City
Library, 102,000 volumes, 1,656 manuscripts; Montpelier City
Library, 120,000 volumes; Nantes City Library, 102,172
volumes, 2,231 manuscripts; Rheims Library, 100,000 books and
1,700 manuscripts; Lyons City Library and Library of the
Palace of Arts, 160,000 volumes and 1,900 manuscripts;
Toulouse City Library, 100,000 volumes and 950 manuscripts;
Rouen City Library, 132,000 printed books and 3,800
manuscripts; Avignon, 117,000 volumes and 3,300 manuscripts;
Bordeaux, 160,000 volumes, 1,500 manuscripts; Tours, 100,000
volumes and 1,743 manuscripts; Amiens, 80,000 volumes, 1,500
manuscripts; Besançon, 140,000 volumes and 1,850 manuscripts.
Minerva, 1893-94.
LIBRARIES:
Italy.
"There are in Italy between thirty and forty libraries which
the present National Government, in recognition of former
Governmental support, is committed to maintain, at least in
some degree. It is a division of resources which even a rich
country would find an impediment in developing a proper
National Library, and Italy, with its over-burdened Treasury,
is far from being in a position to offer the world a single
library of the first class. … Italy, to build up a library
which shall rank with the great national libraries of the
future, will need to concentrate her resources; for though she
has libraries now which are rich in manuscripts, she has not
one which is able to meet the great demands of modern
scholarship for printed books. … If with this want of
fecundity there went a corresponding slothfulness in
libraries, there would be little to be hoped of Italy in
amassing great collections of books. In some respects I have
found a more active bibliothecal spirit in Italy than
elsewhere in Europe, and I suspect that if Italian unification
has accomplished nothing else, it has unshackled the minds of
librarians, and placed them more in sympathy with the modern
gospel which makes a library more the servant than the master
of its users. I suspect this is not, as a rule, the case in
Germany. … I have certainly found in Italian librarians a
great alertness of mind and a marked eagerness to observe the
advances in library methods which have taken place elsewhere
during the last five and twenty years. But at the same time,
with all this activity, the miserable bureaucratic methods of
which even the chance stranger sees so much in Italy, are
allowed to embarrass the efforts of her best librarians. …
In the present condition of Italian finances nothing adequate
to the needs of the larger libraries can be allowed, and the
wonder is that so much is done as is apparent; and it is
doubtless owing to the great force of character which I find
in some of the leading librarians that any progress is made at
all. During the years when the new Italian kingdom had its
capital in Florence a certain amount of concentration started
the new Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale on its career; and when
later the Government was transferred to Rome, the new capital
was given another library, got together in a similar way,
which is called the Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele.
Neither collection is housed in any way suited to its
functions, and the one at Florence is much the most important;
indeed it is marvellously rich in early printed books and in
manuscripts."
J. Winsor,
The condition of Italian Libraries
(The Nation, July 9, 1891).
LIBRARIES:
The Vatican Library.
"Even so inveterate a hater of literature as the Calif, who
conquered Alexandria and gave its precious volumes to the
flames, would have appreciated such a library as the Vatican.
Not a book is to be seen—not a shelf is visible, and there is
nothing to inform the visitor that he is in the most famous
library in the world. … The eye is bewildered by innumerable
busts, statues, and columns. The walls are gay with brilliant
arabesques, and the visitor passes through lofty corridors and
along splendid galleries, finding in every direction something
to please and interest him. … The printed books number about
125,000 volumes and there are about 25,000 manuscripts. The
books and manuscripts are enclosed in low wooden cases around
the walls of the various apartments, the cases are painted in
white and gold colors, and thus harmonize with the gay
appearance of the walls and ceilings. … The honor of
founding the Vatican Library belongs to Pope Nicholas V., who,
in 1447, transferred to the Palace of the Vatican the
manuscripts which had been collected in the Lateran. At his
death the library contained 9,000 manuscripts, but many of
them were dispersed under his successor, Calixtus III. Sixtus
IV. was very active in restoring and increasing the library.
In 1588, the present library building was erected by Sixtus
V., to receive the immense collection obtained by Leo X. In
the year 1600 the value of the library was greatly augmented
by the acquisition of the collection of Fulvius Ursinus and
the valuable manuscripts from the Benedictine Monastery of
Bobbio, composed chiefly of palimpsests. …
{2013}
The next acquisition was the Library of the Elector Palatine,
captured in 1621, at Heidelberg, by De Tilley, who presented
it to Gregory XV. It numbered 2,388 manuscripts, 1,956 in
Latin, and 432 in Greek. In 1658 the Library founded by Duke
Federigo de Urbino—1,711 Greek and Latin manuscripts—was
added to the valuable collection. One of the most valuable
accessions was the collection of Queen Christina of Sweden,
containing all the literary works which her father, Gustavus
Adolphus, had captured at Prague, Bremen, etc., amounting to
2,291 manuscripts, Greek and Latin. In 1746 the magnificent
library of the Ottobuoni family, containing 3,862 Greek and
Latin manuscripts, enriched the Vatican collection. After the
downfall of Napoleon and the restoration of the peace of
Europe in 1815, the King of Prussia, at the suggestion of
Humboldt, applied to Pope Pius VII for the restoration of some
of the manuscripts which De Tilley had plundered from the
Heidelberg Library. The Pope, mindful of the prominent part
taken by Prussia in the restoration of the Papal See,
immediately complied with the royal request, and many
manuscripts of great value to the German historians were sent
back to Germany."
E. L. Didier,
The Vatican Library
(Literary World, June 28, 1884).
The following recent statistics of other Italian libraries are
from "Minerva," 1893-94: Florence National Central Library,
422,183 printed books, 398,845 pamphlets and 17,386
manuscripts; Rome, National Central Library of Victor
Emmanuel, 241,978 books, 130,728 pamphlets, 4,676 manuscripts;
Naples University Library, 181,072 printed books, 43,453
pamphlets, and 109 manuscripts; Bologna University Library,
251,700 books, 43,633 pamphlets and 5,000 manuscripts; Pavia
University Library, 136,000 books, 80,000 pamphlets and 1,100
manuscripts; Turin National Library, 196,279 printed books and
4,119 manuscripts; Venice, National Library of St. Mark,
401,652 printed and bound books, 80,450 pamphlets, and 12,016
manuscripts; Pisa University Library, 108,188 books, 22,960
pamphlets and 274 manuscripts; Genoa University Library,
106,693 books, 46,231 pamphlets, and 1,586 manuscripts;
Modena, the Este Library, 123,300 volumes, and 5,000
manuscripts; Padua University Library, 135,837 volumes, 2,326
manuscripts, and 63,849 pamphlets, etc.; Palermo National
Library, 177,892 volumes and pamphlets, and 1,527 manuscripts;
Palermo Communal Library, 209,000 books, 16,000 pamphlets,
etc., 3,000 manuscripts; Parma Palatine Library, 250,000
books, 20,313 pamphlets, etc., 4,769 manuscripts; Siena
Communal Library 67,966 volumes, 26,968 pamphlets, 4,890
manuscripts.
LIBRARIES:
Austria-Hungary.
The principal libraries in the Empire are reported to contain
as follows: Vienna University Library, 416,608 volumes, 373
incunabula, 498 manuscripts; Vienna Imperial and Royal Court
Library, 500,000 volumes, 6,461 incunabula, and 20,000
manuscripts; Budapest University Library, 200,000 volumes,
1,000 manuscripts; Hungarian National Museum, 400,000 volumes
and 63,000 manuscripts, mostly Hungarian; Czernowitz
University Library, 64,586 volumes and over 30,000 pamphlets,
etc.; Graz University 131,397 volumes of books and 1,708
manuscripts; Innspruck University Library, 135,000 printed
books, including 1,653 incunabula, and 1,046 manuscripts;
Cracow University Library, 283,858 volumes and 5,150
manuscripts; Lemberg University Library, 120,900 volumes;
Prague University Library, 211,131 volumes, 3,848 manuscripts.
Minerva, 1893-94.
LIBRARIES:
Switzerland.
The principal libraries of Switzerland are the following:
Basle Public Library, 170,000 volumes of printed books and
about 5,000 manuscripts; Berne City Library, 80,000 volumes
and a valuable manuscript collection; Berne University
Library, 35,000 volumes; St. Gall "Stiftsbibliothek," about
40,000 volumes, including l,584 incunabula, and 1,730
manuscripts; Lucerne Cantonal Library, 80,000 volumes; Zurich
City Library, 130,000 volumes.
Minerva, 1893-94.
LIBRARIES:
Holland.
The following statistics of libraries in Holland are given in
the German handbook, "Minerva," 1893-94: Leyden University
Library, 190,000 volumes of printed books and 5,400
manuscripts, of which latter 2,400 are oriental; Utrecht
University Library, 200,000 volumes, besides pamphlets;
Groningen University Library, 70,000 volumes.
LIBRARIES:
Belgium.
Brussels Royal Library, 375,000 volumes, and 27,000
manuscripts; Ghent, Library of the City and University of
Gand, 300,000 volumes.
LIBRARIES:
Denmark, Norway and Sweden.
The principal libraries of the Scandinavian kingdoms contain
as follows: Christiania University Library, 312,000 volumes;
Gothenburg City Library, about 60,000 volumes; Copenhagen
University Library 300,000 books and 5,000 manuscripts; Lund
University Library, 150,000 volumes; Stockholm Royal Library,
300,000 printed books and 11,000 manuscripts; Upsala
University Library, 275,000 volumes and 11,000 manuscripts.
Minerva, 1893-94.
LIBRARIES:
Spain.
The principal libraries in Spain are the following: Barcelona
Provincial and University Library, 54,000 volumes; Madrid
University Library, 200,761 volumes and 3,000 manuscripts;
Madrid National Library, 450,000 volumes and 10,000
manuscripts; Salamanca University Library, 72,000 volumes and
870 manuscripts; Seville University Library, 62,000 volumes;
Valencia University Library, 45,000 volumes; Valladolid
University Library, 32,000 volumes.
Minerva, 1893-94.
LIBRARIES:
Russia.
"The most notable [Russian] libraries are those founded by the
government. Of these, two deserve special attention: the
library of the Academy of Sciences and the Imperial Public
Library in St. Petersburg. Books taken by the Russian armies
from the Baltic provinces at the beginning of the eighteenth
century formed the foundation of the first. The Imperial
Library was the result of the Russian capture of Warsaw. Count
Joseph Zalussky, bishop of Kiev, spent forty-three years
collecting a rich library of 300,000 volumes and 10,000
manuscripts, devoting all his wealth to the purchase of books.
His brother Andrew further enriched the library with volumes
taken from the museum of the Polish king, John III. In 1747
Joseph Zalussky opened the library to the public, and in 1761
bequeathed it to a college of Jesuits in Warsaw. Six years
later (1767) Zalussky was arrested and his library removed to
St. Petersburg. The transfer took place in bad weather and
over poor roads, so that many books were injured and many lost
in transit. When the library reached St. Petersburg it
numbered 262,640 volumes and 24,500 estampes. Many had been
stolen during the journey, and years later there were to be
found in Poland books bearing the signature of Zalussky.
{2014}
To the Imperial Library Alexander I. added, in 1805, the
Dubrovsky collection. … Dubrovsky gathered his collection
during a twenty-five years' residence in Paris, Rome, Madrid,
and other large cities of Europe. He acquired many during the
French revolution. … The Imperial Library possesses many
palimpsests, Greek manuscripts of the second century, …
besides Slavonian, Latin, French, and Oriental manuscripts.
… The library is constantly growing, about 25,000 volumes
being added every year. In income, size, and number of readers
it vastly surpasses all private libraries in Russia, the
largest of which does not exceed 25,000 volumes. In later
years the village schools began to open libraries for limited
circles of readers. Small libraries were successfully
maintained in cities and the demand for good reading steadily
increased among the people."
A. V. Babine,
Libraries in Russia,
(Library Journal, March, 1893).
The principal libraries of Russia reported in the German
yearbook "Minerva" 1893-94 are the following: Charkow
University Library, 123,000 volumes; Dorpat University
Library, 170,000 volumes, and 104,700 dissertationen;
Helsingfors University Library 170,000 volumes; Kasan
University Library, 100,000 volumes; Kiev University Library,
118,000 volumes; Moscow University Library, 217,000 volumes;
Odessa University Library, 102,000 volumes; St. Petersburg
University Library, 215,700 volumes; St. Petersburg Imperial
Public Library, 1,050,000 volumes, 28,000 manuscripts.
LIBRARIES:
England: The King's Library and the British Museum.
"No monarch of England is known to have been an extensive
collector of books (in the modern acceptation of the term)
except George III., or, if the name of Charles I. should be
added, it must be in a secondary rank, and with some
uncertainty, because we have not the same evidence of his
collection of books as we have of his pictures, in the
catalogue which exists of them. A royal library had, indeed,
been established in the reign of Henry VII.; it was increased,
as noticed by Walpole, by many presents from abroad, made to
our monarchs after the restoration of learning and the
invention of printing; and naturally received accessions in
every subsequent reign, if it were only from the various
presents by which authors desired to show their respect or to
solicit patronage, as well as from the custom of making new
year's gifts, which were often books. There were also added to
it the entire libraries of Lord Lumley (including those of
Henry, Earl of Arundel, and Archbishop Cranmer), of the
celebrated Casaubon, of Sir John Morris, and the Oriental MSS.
of Sir Thomas Roe. Whilst this collection remained at St.
James's Palace, the number of books amassed in each reign
could have been easily distinguished, as they were classed and
arranged under the names of the respective sovereigns. In 1759
King George II. transferred the whole, by letters patent, to
the then newly-formed establishment of the British Museum; the
arrangement under reigns was some time after departed from,
and the several royal collections interspersed with the other
books obtained from Sir Hans Sloane, Major Edwards, and
various other sources. … George III., on his accession to
the crown, thus found the apartments which had formerly
contained the library of the Kings of England vacated by their
ancient tenants. … Sir F. A. Barnard states that 'to create
an establishment so necessary and important, and to attach it
to the royal residence, was one of the earliest objects which
engaged his majesty's attention at the commencement of his
reign;' and he adds that the library of Joseph Smith, Esq.,
the British Consul at Venice, which was purchased in 1762,
'became the foundation of the present Royal Library.' Consul
Smith's collection was already well known, from a catalogue
which had been printed at Venice in 1755, to be eminently rich
in the earliest editions of the classics, and in Italian
literature.' Its purchase was effected for about £10,000, and
it was brought direct to some apartments at the Queen's Palace
commonly called Buckingham House. Here the subsequent
collections were amassed; and here, after they had outgrown
the rooms at first appropriated to them, the King erected two
large additional libraries, one of which was a handsome
octagon. Latterly the books occupied no less than seven
apartments. … Early in the year 1823, it was made known to
the public that King George IV. had presented the Royal
Library to the British nation. … Shortly after, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in the House of Commons
that it was his majesty's wish that the library should be
placed in the British Museum, but in a separate apartment from
the Museum Library."
Gentleman's Magazine, 1834,
pages 16-22.
"In the chief countries of the Continent of Europe … great
national Museums have, commonly, had their origin in the
liberality and wise foresight either of some sovereign or
other, or of some powerful minister whose mind was large
enough to combine with the cares of State a care for Learning.
In Britain, our chief public collection of literature and of
science originated simply in the public spirit of private
persons. The British Museum was founded precisely at that
period of our history when the distinctively national, or
governmental, care for the interests of literature and of
science was at its lowest, or almost its lowest, point. As
regards the monarchs, it would be hard to fix on any, since
the dawn of the Revival of Learning, who evinced less concern
for the progress and diffusion of learning than did the first
and second princes of the House of Hanover. As regards
Parliament, the tardy and languid acceptance of the boon
proffered, posthumously, by Sir Hans Sloane, constitutes just
the one exceptional act of encouragement that serves to give
saliency to the utter indifference which formed the ordinary
rule. Long before Sloane's time … there had been zealous and
repeated efforts to arouse the attention of the Government as
well to the political importance as to the educational value
of public museums. Many thinkers had already perceived that
such collections were a positive increase of public wealth and
of national greatness, as well as a powerful instrument of
popular education. It had been shewn, over and over again,
that for lack of public care precious monuments and treasures
of learning had been lost; sometimes by their removal to
far-off countries; sometimes by their utter destruction. Until
the appeal made to Parliament by the Executors of Sir Hans
Sloane, in the middle of the eighteenth century, all those
efforts had uniformly failed. But Sir Hans Sloane cannot claim
to be regarded, individually or very specially, as the Founder
of the British Museum. His last Will, indeed, gave an opportunity
for the foundation.
{2015}
Strictly speaking, he was not even the Founder of his own
Collection, as it stood in his lifetime. The Founder of the
Sloane Museum was William Courten, the last of a line of
wealthy Flemish refugees, whose history, in their adopted
country, is a series of romantic adventures. Parliament had
previously accepted the gift of the Cottonian Library, at the
hands of Sir John Cotton, third in descent from its Founder,
and its acceptance of that gift had been followed by almost
unbroken neglect, although the gift was a noble one. Sir John,
when conversing, on one occasion, with Thomas Carte, told the
historian that he had been offered £60,000 of English money,
together with a carte blanche for some honorary mark of royal
favour, on the part of Lewis XIV., for the Library which he
afterwards settled upon the British nation. It has been
estimated that Sloane expended (from first to last) upon his
various collections about £50,000; so that even from the
mercantile point of view, the Cotton family may be said to
have been larger voluntary contributors towards our eventual
National Museum than was Sir Hans Sloane himself. That point
of view, however, would be a very false, because very narrow,
one. Whether estimated by mere money value, or by a truer
standard, the third, in order of time, of the
Foundation-Collections,—that of the 'Harleian
Manuscripts,'—was a much less important acquisition for the
Nation than was the Museum of Sloane, or the Library of
Cotton; but its literary value, as all students of our history
and literature know, is, nevertheless, considerable. Its first
Collector, Robert Harley, the Minister of Queen Anne and the
first of the Harleian Earls of Oxford, is fairly entitled to
rank, after Cotton, Courten, and Sloane, among the virtual or
eventual co-founders of the British Museum. Chronologically,
then, Sir Robert Cotton, William Courten, Hans Sloane, and
Robert Harley, rank first as Founders; so long as we estimate
their relative position in accordance with the successive
steps by which the British Museum was eventually organized.
But there is another synchronism by which greater accuracy is
attainable. Although four years had elapsed between the
passing—in 1753—of 'An Act for the purchase of the Museum or
Collection of Sir Hans Sloane, and of the Harleian Collection
of Manuscripts, and for providing one general repository for
the better reception and more convenient use of the said
Collections, and of the Cottonian Library and of the additions
thereto,' and the gift—in 1757—to the Trustees of those
already united Collections by King George II. of the Old Royal
Library of the Kings his predecessors, yet that royal
collection itself had been (in a restricted sense of the
words) a Public and National possession soon after the days of
the first real and central Founder of the present Museum, Sir
Robert Cotton. But, despite its title, that Royal Library,
also, was—in the main—the creation of subjects, not of
Sovereigns or Governments. Its virtual founder Was Henry,
prince of Wales [son of James I.]. It was acquired, out of his
privy purse, as a subject, not as a Prince. He, therefore, has
a title to be placed among the individual Collectors whose
united efforts resulted—after long intervals of time—in the
creation, eventually, of a public institution second to none,
of its kind, in the world."
E. Edwards,
Founders of the British Museum,
book 1, chapter 1.
"Montague House was purchased by the Trustees in 1754 for a
general repository, and the collections were removed to it.
… On the 15th of January, 1750, the British Museum was
opened for the inspection and use of the public. At first the
Museum was divided into three departments, viz., Printed
Books, Manuscripts, and Natural History; at the head of each
of them was placed an officer designated as 'Under Librarian.'
The increase of the collections soon rendered it necessary to
provide additional accommodation for them, Montague House
proving insufficient. The present by George III. of Egyptian
Antiquities, and the purchase of the Hamilton and Townley
Antiquities, made it moreover imperative to create an
additional department—that of Antiquities and Art—to which
were united the Prints and Drawings, as well as the Medals and
Coins, previously attached to the library of Printed Books and
Manuscripts. The acquisition of the Elgin Marbles in 1816 made
the Department of Antiquities of the highest importance, and
increased room being indispensable for the exhibition of those
marbles, a temporary shelter was prepared for them. This was
the last addition to Montague House. When, in 1823, the
library collected by George III. was presented to the nation
by George IV. it became necessary to erect a building fit to
receive this valuable and extensive collection. It was then
decided to have an entirely new edifice to contain the whole
of the Museum collection, including the recently-acquired
library. Sir R. Smirke was accordingly directed by the
Trustees to prepare plans. The eastern side of the present
structure was completed in 1828, and the Royal Library was
then placed in it. The northern, southern, and western sides
of the building were subsequently added, and in 1845 the whole
of Montague House and its additions had disappeared; while the
increasing collections had rendered it necessary to make
various additions to the original design of Sir R. Smirke,
some of them even before it had been carried out."
J. W. Jones,
British Museum: a Guide,
pages ii-iii.
"The necessity of a general enlargement of the library led to
the suggestion of many plans—some impracticable—some too
expensive—and all involving a delay which would have been
fatal to the efficiency of the Institution. … Fortunately

… after much vigorous discussion, a plan which had been
suggested by the … Principal Librarian [Mr. Panizzi] for
building in the vacant quadrangle, was adopted and carried out
under his own immediate and watchful superintendence. … The
quadrangle within which the new library is built is 313 feet
in length by 235 wide, comprising an area of 73,555 square
feet. Of this space the building covers 47,472 feet, being 258
feet long by 184 feet in width, thus leaving an interval of
from 27 to 30 feet all round. By this arrangement, the light
and ventilation of the surrounding buildings is not interfered
with, and the risk of fire from the outer buildings is guarded
against. The Reading Boom is circular. The dome is 140 feet in
diameter, and its height 106 feet. The diameter of the lantern
is 40 feet. Light is further obtained from twenty
circular-headed windows, 27 feet high by 12 feet wide,
inserted at equal intervals round the dome at a height of 35
feet from the ground.
{2016}
In its diameter the dome of the Reading Room exceeds all
others, with the exception of the Pantheon of Rome, which is
about 2 feet wider. That of St. Peter's at Rome, and of Santa
Maria in Florence are each only 139 feet; that of the tomb of
Mahomet at Bejapore, 135; of St. Paul's, 112; of St. Sophia,
at Constantinople, 107; and of the church of Darmstadt, 105.
The new Reading Room contains 1,250,000 cubic feet of space,
and the surrounding libraries 750,000. These libraries are 24
feet in height, with the exception of that part which runs
round the outside of the Reading Room, which is 32 feet high;
the spring of the dome being 24 feet from the floor of the
Reading Room, and the ground excavated 8 feet below this
level. The whole building is constructed principally of iron.
… The Reading Room contains ample and comfortable
accommodation for 302 readers. There are thirty-five tables:
eight are 34 feet long, and accommodate sixteen readers, eight
on each side; nine are 30 feet long, and accommodate fourteen
readers, seven on each side; two are 30 feet long, and
accommodate eight readers each, viz., seven on one side and
one on the other—these two tables are set apart for the
exclusive use of ladies; sixteen other tables are 6 feet long,
and accommodate two readers each—these are fitted up with
rising desks of a large size for those readers who may have
occasion to consult works beyond the usual dimensions. Each
person has allotted to him, at the long tables, a space of 4
feet 3 inches in length by 2 feet 1 inch in depth. He is
screened from the opposite occupant by a longitudinal
division, which is fitted with a hinged desk graduated on
sloping racks, and a folding shelf for spare books. In the
space between the two, which is recessed, an inkstand is
fixed, having suitable penholders. … The framework of each
table is of iron, forming air-distributing channels, which are
contrived so that the air may be delivered at the top of the
longitudinal screen division, above the level of the heads of
the readers, or, if desired, only at each end pedestal of the
tables, all the outlets being under the control of valves. A
tubular foot-rail also passes from end to end of each table,
which may have a current of warm water through it at pleasure,
and be used as a foot-warmer if required. The pedestals of the
tables form tubes communicating with the air-chamber below,
which is 6 feet high, and occupies the whole area of the
Reading Room: it is fitted with hot-water pipes arranged in
radiating lines. The supply of fresh air is obtained from a
shaft 60 feet high. … The shelves within the Reading Room
contain about 60,000 volumes: the new building altogether will
accommodate about 1,500,000 volumes."
List of the Books of Reference in the Reading Room of the
British Museum; preface.
The number of volumes of printed books in the British Museum
in 1893 is reported to have been 1,600,000, the number of
manuscripts 50,000 and the maps and charts 200,000.
Minerva, 1893-94.
A purchase from the Duke of Bedford, of adjoining land, to the
extent of five and a half acres, for the enlargement of the
Museum, was announced by the London Times, March 18, 1894.
With this addition, the area of ground occupied by the Museum
will be fourteen acres.
LIBRARIES:
England: The Bodleian Library.
"Its founder, Sir Thomas Bodley, was a worthy of Devon, who
had been actively employed by Queen Elizabeth as a
diplomatist, and had returned tired of court life to the
University, where long before he had been Fellow of Merton
College. He found the ancient library of the University
(which, after growing slowly with many vicissitudes from small
beginnings, had suddenly been enriched in 1439-46 by a gift of
264 valuable MSS. from Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester) utterly
destroyed by Edward VI.'s Commissioners, and the room built
for its reception (still called 'Duke Humphrey's library')
swept clear even of the readers' desks. His determination to
refound the library of the University was actively carried
out, and on November 8, 1602, the new institution was formally
opened with about 2,000 printed and manuscript volumes. Two
striking advantages were possessed by the Bodleian almost from
the first. Sir Thomas Bodley employed his great influence at
court and with friends to induce them to give help to his
scheme, and accordingly we find not only donations of money
and books from personal friends, but 240 MSS. contributed by
the Deans and Chapters of Exeter and Windsor. Moreover, in
1610, he arranged with the Stationers' Company that they
should present his foundation with a copy of every printed
book published by a member of the Company; and from that time
to this the right to every book published in the kingdom has
been continuously enjoyed."
F. Madan,
Books in Manuscript,
page 84.
In 1891 the Bodleian Library was said to contain 400,000
printed books and 30,000 manuscripts. Under the copyright act
of Great Britain, the British Museum, the Bodleian Library,
Oxford, the Cambridge University Library, the Advocates
Library, Edinburgh, and the Trinity College Library, Dublin,
are each entitled to a copy of every work published in the
United Kingdom.
LIBRARIES:
England: Rise and Growth of Free Town-Libraries.
In the "Encyclopædia Britannica" (9th edition) we read, in the
article "Libraries," that "the fine old library instituted by
Humphrey Chetham in Manchester, in 1653, and which is still
'housed in the old collegiate buildings where Raleigh was once
entertained by Dr. Dee, might be said to be the first free
library' in England. Two centuries, however, before worthy
Chetham had erected his free fountain of knowledge for thirsty
souls, a grave fraternity known as the Guild of Kalendars had
established a free library, for all comers, in connection with
a church yet standing in one of the thoroughfares of Old
Bristol. … John Leland (temp. Henry VIII.) speaks of the
Kalendars as an established body about the year 1170: and when
in 1216 Henry III. held a Parliament in Bristol, the deeds of
the guild were inspected, and ratified on account of the
antiquity and high character of the fraternity ('propter
antiquitates et bonitates in eâ Gilda repertas'), and Gualo,
the Papal Legate, commended the Kalendars to the care of
William de Blois, Bishop of Worcester, within whose diocese
Bristol then lay. It was the office of the Kalendars to record
local events and such general affairs as were thought worthy
of commemoration, whence their name. They consisted of clergy
and laity, even women being admitted to their Order. …
{2017}
It was ordered by Wolstan, Bishop of Worcester, who in
visitation of this part of his diocese, July 10, 1340,
examined the ancient rules of the College, that a prior in
priest's orders should be chosen by the majority of the
chaplains and lay brethren, without the solemnity of
confirmation, consecration or benediction of superiors, and
eight chaplains who were not bound by monastic rules, were to
be joined with him to celebrate for departed brethren and
benefactors every day. By an ordinance of John Carpenter,
Bishop of Worcester, A. D. 1464, the Prior was to reside in
the college, and take charge of a certain library newly
erected at the Bishop's expense, so that every festival day
from seven to eleven in the forenoon admission should be
freely allowed to all desirous of consulting the Prior, to
read a public lecture every week in the library, and elucidate
obscure places of Scripture as well as he could to those
desirous of his teachings. … Lest, through negligence or
accident, the books should be lost, it was ordered that three
catalogues of them should be kept; one to remain with the Dean
of Augustinian Canons, whose 14th-century church is now
Bristol Cathedral, another with the Mayor for the time being,
and the third with the Prior himself. Unfortunately, they are
all three lost. … This interesting library was destroyed by
fire in 1466 through the carelessness of a drunken
'point-maker,' two adjoining houses against the steeple of the
church being at the same time burnt down."
J. Taylor,
The First English Free Library and its Founders
(Murray's Magazine, November, 1891).
"Free town-libraries are essentially a modern institution, and
yet can boast of a greater antiquity than is generally
supposed, for we find a town-library at Auvergne in 1540, and
one at a still earlier date at Aix. Either the munificence of
individuals or the action of corporate authorities has given
very many of the continental towns freely accessible
libraries, some of them of considerable extent. In England the
history of town-libraries is much briefer. There is reason to
believe that London at an early date was possessed of a common
library; and Bristol, Norwich, and Leicester, had each
town-libraries, but the corporations proved but careless
guardians of their trust, and in each case allowed it to be
diverted from the free use of the citizens for the benefit of
a subscription library. At Bristol, in 1613, Mr. Robert
Redwood 'gave his lodge to be converted into a library or
place to put books in for the furtherance of learning.' Some
few years after, Tobie Matthew, Archbishop of York, left some
valuable books in various departments of literature for free
access 'to the merchants and shopkeepers.' … The paucity of
our public libraries, twenty years ago, excited the attention
of Mr. Edward Edwards, to whose labours in this field the
country owes so much. Having collected a large amount of
statistics as to the comparative number of these institutions
in different States, he communicated the result of his
researches to the Statistical Society, in a paper which was
read on the 20th of March, 1848, and was printed in this
'Journal' in the August following. The paper revealed some
unpleasant facts, and showed that, in respect of the provision
of public libraries, Great Britain occupied a very unworthy
position. In the United Kingdom (including Malta) Mr. Edwards
could only discover 29 libraries having more than 10,000
volumes, whilst France could boast 107, Austria 41,
Switzerland 13. The number of volumes to every hundred of the
population of cities containing libraries, was in Great
Britain 43, France 125, Brunswick 2,353. Of the 29 British
libraries enumerated by Mr. Edwards, some had only doubtful
claims to be considered as public, and only one of them was
absolutely free to all comers, without influence or formality.
That one was the public library at Manchester, founded by
Humphrey Chetham in 1665. The paper read before this Society
twenty-two years ago was destined to be productive of great
and speedy results. From the reading of it sprang the present
system of free town-libraries. The seed was then sown, and it
is now fructifying in the libraries which are springing up on
every hand. The paper attracted the attention of the late
William Ewart, Esq., M. P., and ultimately led to the
appointment of a parliamentary committee on the subject of
public libraries. The report of this committee paved the way
for the Public Libraries Act of 1850."
W. E. A. Axon,
Statistical Notes on the Free Town-Libraries of Great
Britain and the Continent
(Journal of the Statistical Society,
September 1870, volume 33).
The progress of free public libraries in England under the Act
of 1850 was not, for a long time, very rapid. "In the 36 years
from 1850 onward—that is, down to 1886—133 places had
availed themselves of the benefits of the act. That was not a
very large number, not amounting quite, upon the average, to
four in each of those 36 years. … Now, see the change which
has taken place. We have only four years, from 1887 to 1890,
and in those four years no less than 70 places have taken
advantage of the act, so that instead of an average of less
than four places in the year, we have an average of more than
17 places."
W. E. Gladstone,
Address at the Opening of the Free Public Library of St.
Martin's-in-the-Fields.
"The Clerkenwell Library Commissioners draw attention to the
enormous strides London has made within the last five years in
the matter of public libraries. In 1886 four parishes had
adopted the Acts; by December, 1891, 29 parishes had adopted
them, and there are already 30 libraries and branches opened
throughout the County of London, possessing over 250,000
volumes, and issuing over 3,000,000 volumes per annum."
The Library Journal,
February, 1892.
Under a new law, which came into force in 1893, "any local
authority (i. e., town council or district board), save in the
County of London, may establish and maintain public libraries
without reference to the wishes of the rate payers."
The Library Journal,
October, 1893 (volume 18, page 442).
LIBRARIES:
United States of America:
Franklin and the first Subscription Library.
When Franklin's club, at Philadelphia, the Junto, was first
formed, "its meetings were held (as the custom of clubs was in
that clubbing age) in a tavern; and in a tavern of such humble
pretensions as to be called by Franklin an ale-house. But the
leathern-aproned philosophers soon removed to a room of their
own, lent them by one of their members, Robert Grace. It often
happened that a member would bring a book or two to the Junto,
for the purpose of illustrating the subject of debate, and
this led Franklin to propose that all the members should keep
their books in the Junto room, as well for reference while
debating as for the use of members during the week. The
suggestion being approved, one end of their little apartment
was soon filled with books; and there they remained for the
common benefit a year.
{2018}
But some books having been injured, their owners became
dissatisfied, and the books were all taken home. Books were
then scarce, high-priced, and of great bulk. Folios were still
common, and a book of less magnitude than quarto was deemed
insignificant. … Few books of much importance were published
at less than two guineas. Such prices as four guineas, five
guineas, and six guineas were not uncommon. Deprived of the
advantage of the Junto collection, Franklin conceived the idea
of a subscription library. Early in 1731 he drew up a plan,
the substance of which was, that each subscriber should
contribute two pounds sterling for the first purchase of
books, and ten shillings a year for the increase of the
library. As few of the inhabitants of Philadelphia had money
to spare, and still fewer cared for reading, he found very
great difficulty in procuring a sufficient number of
subscribers. He says: 'I put myself as much as I could out of
sight, and stated it as a scheme of a number of friends, who
had requested me to go about and propose it to such as they
thought lovers of reading. In this way my affairs went on more
smoothly, and I ever after practiced it on such occasions, and
from my frequent successes can heartily recommend it.' Yet it
was not until November, 1731, at least five months after the
project was started, that fifty names were obtained; and not
till March, 1732, that the money was collected. After
consulting James Logan, 'the best judge of books in these
parts,' the first list of books was made out, a draft upon
London of forty-five pounds was purchased, and both were
placed in the hands of one of the directors who was going to
England. Peter Collinson undertook the purchase, and added to
it presents of Newton's 'Principia,' and 'Gardener's
Dictionary.' All the business of the library Mr. Collinson
continued to transact for thirty years, and always swelled the
annual parcel of books by gifts of valuable works. In those
days getting a parcel from London was a tedious affair indeed.
All the summer of 1732 the subscribers were waiting for the
coming of the books, as for an event of the greatest interest.
… In October the books arrived, and were placed, at first,
in the room of the Junto. A librarian was appointed, and the
library was opened once a week for giving out the books. The
second year Franklin himself served as librarian. For many
years the secretary to the directors was Joseph Breintnal, by
whose zeal and diligence the interests of the library were
greatly promoted. Franklin printed a catalogue soon after the
arrival of the books, for which, and for other printing, he
was exempted from paying his annual ten shillings for two
years. The success of this library, thus begun by a few
mechanics and clerks, was great in every sense of the word.
Valuable donations of books, money and curiosities were
frequently made to it. The number of subscribers slowly, but
steadily, increased. Libraries of similar character sprung up
all over the country, and many were started even in
Philadelphia. Kalm, who was in Philadelphia in 1748, says that
then the parent library had given rise to 'many little
libraries,' on the same plan as itself. He also says that
non-subscribers were then allowed to take books out of the
library, by leaving a pledge for the value of the book, and
paying for a folio eight pence a week, for a quarto six pence,
and for all others four pence. 'The subscribers,' he says,
'were so kind to me as to order the librarian, during my stay
here, to lend me every book I should want, without requiring
any payment of me.' In 1764, the shares had risen in value to
nearly twenty pounds, and the collection was considered to be
worth seventeen hundred pounds. In 1785, the number of volumes
was 5,487; in 1807, 14,457; in 1861, 70,000. The institution
is one of the few in America that has held on its way,
unchanged in any essential principle, for a century and a
quarter, always on the increase, always faithfully
administered, always doing well its appointed work. There is
every reason to believe that it will do so for centuries to
come. The prosperity of the Philadelphia Library was owing to
the original excellence of the plan, the good sense embodied
in the rules, the care with which its affairs were conducted,
and the vigilance of Franklin and his friends in turning to
account passing events. Thomas Penn, for example, visited
Philadelphia a year or two after the library was founded; when
the directors of the library waited upon him with a dutiful
address, and received, in return, a gift of books and
apparatus. It were difficult to over-estimate the value to the
colonies of the libraries that grew out of Franklin's
original' conception. They were among the chief means of
educating the colonies up to Independence. 'Reading became
fashionable,' says Franklin; 'and our people having no public
amusements to divert their attention from study, became better
acquainted with books, and in a few years were observed, by
strangers, to be better instructed and more intelligent than
people of the same rank generally are in other countries.' …
What the Philadelphia Library did for Franklin himself, the
libraries, doubtless, did for many others. It made him a daily
student for twenty years. He set apart an hour or two every
day for study, and thus acquired the substance of all the most
valuable knowledge then possessed by mankind. Whether Franklin
was the originator of subscription libraries, and of the idea
of permitting books to be taken to the homes of subscribers, I
cannot positively assert. But I can discover no trace of
either of those two fruitful conceptions before his time."
J. Parton,
Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin,
pages 200-203.
"The books were at first kept in the house of Robert Grace,
whom Franklin characterizes as 'a young gentleman of some
fortune, generous, lively, and witty, a lover of punning and
of his friends.' Afterward they were allotted a room in the
State-House; and, in 1742, a charter was obtained from the
Proprietaries. In 1790, having in the interval absorbed
several other associations and sustained a removal to
Carpenter's Hall, where its apartment had been used as a
hospital for wounded American soldiers, the Library was at
last housed in a building especially erected for it at Fifth
and Chestnut streets, where it remained until within the last
few years. It brought only about eight thousand volumes into
its new quarters, for it had languished somewhat during the
Revolution and the war of words which attended our political
birth. But it had received no injury. … Two years after
removal to its quarters on Fifth street, the Library received
the most valuable gift of books it has as yet had. James
Logan, friend and adviser of Penn, … had gathered a most
important collection of books.
{2019}
Mr. Logan was translator of Cicero's 'Cato Major,' the first
classic published in America, besides being versed in natural
science. His library comprised, as he tells us, 'over one
hundred volumes of authors, all in Greek, with mostly their
versions; all the Roman classics without exception; all the
Greek mathematicians. … Besides there are many of the most
valuable Latin authors, and a great number of modern
mathematicians.' These, at first bequeathed as a public
library to the city, became a branch of the Philadelphia
Library under certain conditions, one of which was that,
barring contingencies, one of the donor's descendants should
always hold the office of trustee. And to-day his direct
descendant fills the position, and is perhaps the only example
in this country of an hereditary office-holder. … In 1869
died Dr. James Rush, son of Benjamin Rush, and himself well
known as the author of a work on the human voice, and as
husband of a lady who almost succeeded in naturalizing the
salon in this country. By his will about one million dollars
were devoted to the erection and maintenance of an isolated
and fire-proof library-building, which was to be named the
Ridgway Library, in memory of his wife. This building was
offered to the Philadelphia Company, and the bequest was
accepted. That institution had by this time accumulated about
one hundred thousand volumes. … A building of the Doric
order was erected, which with its grounds covers an entire
square or block, and is calculated to contain four hundred
thousand volumes, or three times as many as the Library at
present has, and to this building the more valuable books of
the Library were removed in 1878; the fiction and more modern
works being placed in another designed in imitation of the old
edifice, and nearer the center of the city."
B. Samuel,
The Father of American Libraries
(Century Magazine, May, 1883).
In 1893, the library of the Philadelphia Library Company
contained 171,069 volumes.
LIBRARIES:
The First Library in New York.
The New York Society Library is the oldest institution of the
kind in the city of New York. "In 1729, the Reverend Dr.
Millington, Rector of Newington, England, by his will,
bequeathed his library to the Society for the Propagation of
the Gospel in Foreign Parts. By this society the library of
Dr. Millington was presented to the corporation of the city,
for the use of the clergy and gentlemen of New-York and the
neighbouring provinces. … 'In 1754 [as related in Smith's
History of New York] a set of gentlemen undertook to carry
about a subscription towards raising a public library, and in
a few days collected near 600 pounds, which were laid out in
purchasing about 700 volumes of new, well-chosen books. Every
subscriber, upon payment of five pounds principal, and the
annual sum of ten shillings, is entitled to the use of these
books,—his right, by the articles, is assignable, and for
non-compliance with them may be forfeited. The care of this
library is committed to twelve trustees, annually elected by
the subscribers, on the last Tuesday of April, who are
restricted from making any rules repugnant to the fundamental
subscription. This is the beginning of a library which, in
process of time, will probably become vastly rich and
voluminous, and it would be very proper for the company to
have a Charter for its security and encouragement.' The
library of the corporation above alluded to, appearing to have
been mismanaged, and at length entirely disused, the trustees
of the New-York Society Library offered to take charge of it,
and to deposit their own collection with it, in the City-Hall.
This proposal having been acceded to by the corporation, the
Institution thenceforward received the appellation of 'The
City Library,' a name by which it was commonly known for a
long time. A good foundation having been thus obtained, the
library prospered and increased. … In 1772, a charter was
granted to it by the colonial government. The war of the
revolution, however, which soon after occurred, interfered
with these pleasing prospects; the city fell into the
possession of the enemy; the effect on all our public
institutions was more or less disastrous, and to the library
nearly fatal. An interval of no less than fourteen years, (of
which it possesses no record whatever,) here occurs in the
history of the society. At length it appears from the minutes,
that 'the accidents of the late war having nearly destroyed
the former library, no meeting of the proprietors for the
choice of trustees was held from the last Tuesday in April,
1774, until Saturday, the 21st December, 1788, when a meeting
was summoned.' In 1789, the original charter, with all its
privileges, was revived by the legislature of this state; the
surviving members resumed the payment of their annual dues, an
accession of new subscribers was obtained, and the society,
undeterred by the loss of its books, commenced almost a new
collection."
Catalogue of the New York Society Library:
Historical Notice.
LIBRARIES:
Redwood Library.
While Bishop Berkeley was residing, in 1729, on his farm near
Newport, Rhode Island, "he took an active share in forming a
philosophical society in Newport. … Among the members were
Colonel Updike, Judge Scott (a granduncle of Sir Walter
Scott), Nathaniel Kay, Henry Collins, Nathan Townsend, the
Reverend James Honeyman, and the Reverend Jeremiah Condy. …
The Society seems to have been very successful. One of its
objects was to collect books. It originated, in 1747, the
Redwood Library."
A. C. Fraser,
Life and Letters of George Berkeley
(volume 4 of Works), page 169.
The library thus founded took its name from Abraham Redwood,
who gave £500 to it in 1747. Other subscriptions were obtained
in Newport to the amount of £5,000, colonial currency, and a
building for the library erected in 1750.
United States of America: Free Public Libraries.
"Mr. Ewart, in his Report of the Select Committee on Public
Libraries, 1849, says: 'Our younger brethren, the people of
the United States, have already anticipated us in the
formation of libraries entirely open to the public.' No free
public library, however, was then in operation, in the United
States, yet one had been authorized by legislative action. The
movements in the same direction in England and the United
States seem to have gone on independently of each other; and
in the public debates and private correspondence relating to
the subject there seems to have been no borrowing of ideas, or
scarcely an allusion, other than the one quoted, to what was
being done elsewhere. In October, 1847, Josiah Quincy, Jr.,
Mayor of Boston, suggested to the City Council that a petition
be sent to the State legislature asking for authority to lay a
tax by which the city of Boston could establish a library free
to all its citizens. The Massachusetts legislature, in March,
1848, passed such an act, and in 1851 made the act apply to
all the cities and towns in the State.
{2020}
In 1849 donations of books were made to the Boston Public
Library. Late in the same year Mr. Edward Everett made to it
the donation of his very complete collection of United States
documents, and Mayor Bigelow a gift of $1,000. In May, 1852,
the first Board of Trustees, with Mr. Everett as president,
was organized, and Mr. Joshua Bates, of London, made his first
donation of $50,000 for the use of the library. It was
fortunate that the public-library system started where it did
and under the supervision of the eminent men who constituted
the first board of trustees of the Boston Public Library. Mr.
George Ticknor was the person who mapped out the sagacious
policy of that library—a policy which has never been
improved, and which has been adopted by all the public
libraries in this country, and, in its main features, by the
free libraries of England. For fifteen years or more Mr.
Ticknor gave the subject his personal attention. He went to
the library every day, as regularly as any of the employes,
and devoted several hours to the minutest details of its
administration. Before he had any official relations with it,
he gave profound consideration to, and settled in his own
mind, the leading principles on which the library should be
conducted. … Started as the public-library system was on
such principles, and under the guidance of these eminent men,
libraries sprang up rapidly in Massachusetts, and similar
legislation was adopted in other States. The first legislation
in Massachusetts was timid. The initiative law of 1848 allowed
the city of Boston to spend only $5,000 a year on its Public
Library, which has since expended $125,000 a year. The State
soon abolished all limitation to the amount which might be
raised for library purposes. New Hampshire, in 1849,
anticipated Massachusetts, by two years, in the adoption of a
general library law. Maine followed in 1854; Vermont in 1865;
Ohio in 1867; Colorado, Illinois, and Wisconsin in 1872;
Indiana and Iowa in 1873; Texas in 1874; Connecticut and Rhode
Island in 1875; Michigan and Nebraska in 1877; California in
1878; Missouri and New Jersey in 1885; Kansas in 1886. … The
public library law of Illinois, adopted in 1872, and since
enacted by other Western States, is more elaborate and
complete than the library laws of any of the New England
States. … The law of Wisconsin is similar to that of
Illinois. … New Jersey has a public-library law patterned
after that of Illinois."
W. F. Poole,
President's Address at the annual meeting of
the American Library Association, 1887.
The State of New York adopted a library law in 1892, under
which the creation of free libraries has been promisingly
begun. A law having like effect was adopted in New Hampshire
in 1891.
LIBRARIES:
United States of America:
Library Statistics of 1891.
"As to the early statistics of libraries in this country but
little can be found. Prof. Jewett, in his 'Notices of Public
Libraries,' published by the Smithsonian Institution in 1850,
gave a summary of public libraries, amounting to 694 and
containing at that time 2,201,632 volumes. In the census of
1850 an attempt was made to give the number of libraries and
the number of volumes they contained, exclusive of school and
Sunday school libraries. This number was 1,560; the number of
volumes, 2,447,086. In 1856 Mr. Edward Edwards in his summary
of libraries gave a much smaller number of libraries, being
only 341, but the number of volumes was nearly the same, being
2,371,887, and was also based upon the census of 1850. Mr.
William J. Rhees, in his 'Manual of Public Libraries,' which
was printed in 1859, gave a list of 2,902 libraries, but of
all this number only 1,312 had any report whatever of the
number of volumes they contained. From these meager statistics
it is seen that the reports do not vary very much, giving
about the same number of libraries and number of volumes in
them, taking account of the changes that would occur from the
different classifications as to what was excepted or omitted
as a library. The annual reports of the Bureau from 1870 to
1874 contained limited statistics of only a few hundred
libraries, and little more is shown than the fact that there
were about 2,000 public libraries of all kinds in the United
States. About five years of labor was expended in collecting
material for the special report of the Bureau upon public
libraries, which was printed in 1876, and this gave a list of
3,649 libraries of over 300 volumes, and the total number of
volumes was 12,276,964, this being about the first fairly
complete collection of library statistics. In the report of
the Bureau for 1884-85, after considerable correspondence and
using the former work as a basis, another list of public
libraries was published, amounting to 5,388 libraries of over
300 volumes, an increase of 1,869 libraries in ten years, or
almost 54 per cent. The number of volumes contained in these
libraries at that time was 20,622,076, or an increase of about
66 per cent, and showing that the percentage of increase in
the number of volumes was even greater than that of the number
of libraries. An estimate of the proportion of smaller
libraries under 500 volumes in that list indicates that these
smaller libraries included only about 20 per cent of the
books, so that this list could be said to fairly show the
extent of the libraries at that time. In the report for
1886-87, detailed statistics of the various classes of
libraries were given, except those of colleges and schools,
which were included in the statistics of those institutions.
From the uncertainty of the data and the imperfect records
given of the very small libraries, it was deemed best to
restrict the statistics to collections of books that might be
fairly called representative, and as those having less than
1,000 volumes made but a proportionally small percentage of
the whole number of books the basis of 1,000 volumes or over
was taken. This list includes the statistics only of libraries
of this size and amounted to 1,777 libraries, containing
14,012,370 volumes, and were arranged in separate lists by
classes as far as it could be done. … The number of
libraries and of volumes in each of the seven special classes
in the report made in 1887 was as follows: Free public lending
libraries, 434; volumes, 3,721,191; free public reference
libraries, 153; volumes, 3,075,099; free public school
libraries, 93; volumes, 177,560; free corporate lending
libraries, 241; volumes 1,727,870; libraries of clubs,
associations, etc., 341; volumes, 2,460,334; subscription
corporate libraries, 452; volumes, 2,644,929; and circulating
libraries proper, 751; volumes, 215,487. The statistics [now]
given … are for the year 1891, and include only libraries of
1,000 volumes and over, thus differing from the complete report
of 1885. …
{2021}
There were, in 1891, 3,804 libraries. Of these, 3 contain over
500,000 volumes; 1 between 300,000 and 500,000; 26 between
100,000 and 300,000; 68 between 50,000 and 100,000; 128
between 25,000 and 50,000; 383 between 10,000 and 25,000; 565
between 5,000 and 10,000; and 2,360 between 1,000 and 5,000.
… The North Atlantic Division contains 1,913 libraries, or
50.3 per cent of the whole number; the South Atlantic, 339, or
8.88 per cent; the South Central, 256, or 6.73 per cent; the
North Central, 1,098, or 28.87 per cent, and the Western, 198,
or 5.22 per cent. Of the distribution of volumes in the
libraries, the North Atlantic Division has 16,605,286 or 53.34
per cent; the South Atlantic, 4,276,894, or 13.71 per cent;
the South Central 1,345,708, or 4.03 per cent; the North
Central, 7,320,045, or 23.32 per cent; and the Western,
1,593,974, or 5.34 per cent. … From [1885 to 1891] the
increase in the United States in the number of libraries was
from 2,987 to 3,804, an increase of 817, or 27.35 per cent; in
the North Atlantic, from 1,543 to 1,913, an increase of 370,
or 24 per cent; in the South Atlantic, from 289 to 338, an
increase of 49, or 17 per cent; in the South Central, from 201
to 256, an increase of 55, or 27.5 per cent; in the North
Central, from 813 to 1,099, an increase of 286, or 35.18 per
cent; and in the Western, from 141 to 198, an increase of 57,
or 40.43 per cent. These figures show that, comparatively, the
largest increase in the number of libraries was in the Western
Division, and of the number of volumes the greatest increase
was in the North Central Division. The percentage of increase
in the whole country was 66.3 for six years, or an average of
over 11 per cent each year, which at this rate would double
the number of volumes and libraries every nine years. … In
the United States in 1885 there was one library to each 18,822
of the population, while in 1891 there was one to every
16,462, or a decrease of population to a library of 2,360, or
12.5 percent; in the North Atlantic Division the decrease was
from 10,246 to 9,096, 1,150, or 11.2 per cent; in the South
Atlantic, from 28,740 to 26,206, 2,534, or 8.08 per cent; in
the South Central, from 48,974 to 42,863, 6,111, or 12.5 per
cent; in the North Central, from 24,807 to 20,348, 4,459, or
18 per cent; and in the Western, from 15,557 to 15,290, 277 or
1.8 per cent. The distribution of libraries in the North
Atlantic Division shows the smallest average population to a
library and the least change in the number, except the Western
Division, where the increase of population from immigration
has been greater than the increase in the number of libraries.
But, generally, the establishment and growth in the size of
libraries have been very large in nearly every section. …
This shows that in 1885 there were in the United States in the
libraries of the size mentioned 34 books to every 100 of the
population, while in 1891 this number was 50, or an increase
of 16 books, or 47 per cent. In the North Atlantic Division
the increase was from 66 to 95, an increase of 29 books, or 34
per cent; in the South Atlantic, from 34 to 48, an increase of
14, or 41 per cent; in the South Central, from 9 to 12, an
increase of 3, or 33.33 per cent; in the North Central, from
20 to 33, an increase of 13, or 65 per cent; and in the
Western, from 43 to 53, an increase of 10, or 23 per cent.
These figures show that, comparatively, the largest increase
of books to population has been in the great Northwest, over
11 per cent each year. In the whole country there has been an
average increase of 7.8 per cent per annum; that is, the
increase of the number of books in the libraries of the
country has been 7.8 per cent greater than the increase of the
population during the past six years."
W. Flint,
Statistics of Public Libraries
(United States Bureau of Education,
Circ. of Information Number 7, 1893).
LIBRARIES:
United States of America:
Massachusetts Free Libraries.
"In 1839 the Hon. Horace Mann, then Secretary of the Board of
Education, stated as the result of a careful effort to obtain
authentic information relative to the libraries in the State,
that there were from ten to fifteen town libraries, containing
in the aggregate from three to four thousand volumes, to which
all the citizens of the town had the right of access; that the
aggregate number of volumes in the public libraries, of all
kinds, in the State was about 300,000; and that but little
more than 100,000 persons, or one-seventh of the population of
the State, had any right of access to them. A little over a
half century has passed. There are now 175 towns and cities
having free public libraries under municipal control, and 248
of the 351 towns and cities contain libraries in which the
people have rights or free privileges. There are about
2,500,000 volumes in these libraries, available for the use of
2,104,224 of the 2,238,943 inhabitants which the State
contains according to the census of 1890. The gifts of
individuals in money, not including gifts of books, for
libraries and library buildings, exceed five and a half
million dollars. There are still 103 towns in the State, with
an aggregate population of 134,719, which do not have the
benefit of the free use of a public library. These are almost
without exception small towns, with a slender valuation, and
67 of them show a decline in population in the past five
years. The State has taken the initiative in aiding the
formation of free public libraries in such towns."
First Report of the Free Public Library
Commission of Massachusetts, 1891, pref.
The second report of the Commissioners, 1892, showed an
addition of 36 to the towns which have established free public
libraries.
LIBRARIES:
United States of America:
The American Library Association.
A distinctly new era in the history of American libraries—and
in the history, it may be said, of libraries throughout the
English-speaking world,—was opened, in 1876, by the meeting
of a conference of librarians at Philadelphia, during the
Centennial Exhibition of the summer of that year. The first
fruit of the conference was the organization of a permanent
American Library Association, which has held annual meetings
since, bringing large numbers of the librarians of the country
together every year, making common property of their
experience, their knowledge, their ideas,—animating them with
a common spirit, and enlisting them in important undertakings
of cooperative work. Almost simultaneously with the
Philadelphia meeting, but earlier, there was issued the first
number of a "Library Journal," called into being by the
sagacious energy of the same small band of pioneers who
planned and brought about the conference. The Library Journal
became the organ of the American Library Association, and each
was stimulated and sustained by the other: Their combined
influence has acted powerfully upon those engaged in the work
of American libraries, to elevate their aims, to increase
their efficiency, and to make their avocation a recognized
profession, exacting well-defined qualifications.
{2022}
The general result among the libraries of the country has been
an increase of public usefulness beyond measure. To this
renaissance in the library world many persons contributed; but
its leading spirits were Melvil Dewey, latterly Director of
the New York State Library; Justin Winsor, Librarian of
Harvard University, formerly of the Boston Public Library; the
late William F. Poole, LL.D., Librarian of the Newberry
Library and formerly of the Chicago Public Library; Charles A.
Cutter, lately Librarian of the Boston Athenæum; the late
Frederick Leypoldt, first publisher of the "Library Journal,"
and his successor, R. R. Bowker. The new library spirit was
happily defined by James Russell Lowell, in his address
delivered at the opening of a free public library in Chelsea,
Massachusetts, and published in the volume of his works
entitled "Democracy and other Addresses"; "Formerly," he said,
"the duty of a librarian was considered too much that of a
watch-dog, to keep people as much as possible away from the
books, and to hand these over to his successor as little worn
by use as he could. Librarians now, it is pleasant to see,
have a different notion of their trust, and are in the habit
of preparing, for the direction of the inexperienced, lists of
such books as they think best worth reading. Cataloguing has
also, thanks in great measure to American librarians, become a
science, and catalogues, ceasing to be labyrinths without a
clew, are furnished with finger-posts at every turn. Subject
catalogues again save the beginner a vast deal of time and
trouble by supplying him for nothing with one at least of the
results of thorough scholarship, the knowing where to look for
what he wants. I do not mean by this that there is or can be
any short cut to learning, but that there may be, and is, such
a short cut to information that will make learning more easily
accessible."
The organization of the American Library Association led to
the formation, in 1877, of the Library Association of the
United Kingdom, which was incident to the meeting of an
international conference of Librarians held in London.
LIBRARIES:
United States of America:
Principal Libraries.
The following are the libraries in the United States which
exceeded 100,000 volumes in 1891, as reported in the
"Statistics of Public Libraries" published by the Bureau of
Education. The name of each library is preceded by the date of
its foundation:
1638. Harvard University Library,
292,000 volumes; 278,097 pamphlets.
1701. Yale College Library, New Haven,
185,000 volumes; 100,000 pamphlets.
1731. Philadelphia Library Company,
165,487 volumes; 30,000 pamphlets.
1749. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
100,000 volumes; 100,000 pamphlets.
1754. Columbia College Library, New York,
135,000 volumes.
1789. Library of the House of Representatives, Washington,
125,000 volumes.
1800. Library of Congress, Washington,
659,843 volumes; 210,000 pamphlets.
1807. Boston Athenæum,
173,831 volumes; 70,000 pamphlets.
1818. New York State Library, Albany,
157,114 volumes.
1820. New York Mercantile Library, New York,
239,793 volumes.
1821. Philadelphia Mercantile Library,
166,000 volumes; 10,000 pamphlets.
1826. Maryland State Library, Annapolis,
100,000 volumes.
1849. Astor Library, New York,
238,946 volumes; 12,000 pamphlets.
1852. Boston Public Library,
556,283 volumes.
1857. Brooklyn Library,
113,251 volumes; 21,500 pamphlets.
1857. Peabody Institute, Baltimore,
110,000 volumes; 13,500 pamphlets.
1865. Library of the Surgeon-General's Office, Washington,
104,300 volumes; 161,700 pamphlets.
1865. Detroit Public Library,
108,720 volumes.
1867. Cincinnati Public Library,
156,673 volumes; 18,326 pamphlets.
1868. Cornell University Library, Ithaca, New York,
111,007 volumes; 25,000 pamphlets.
1872. Chicago Public Library,
175,874 volumes; 25,293 pamphlets.
1882. Enoch Pratt Free Library, Baltimore,
106,663 volumes; 1,500 pamphlets.
1890. University of Chicago Library,
280,000 volumes.
1891. Sutro Library, San Francisco,
200,000 volumes.
LIBRARIES:
United States of America:
Library Gifts.
A remarkable number of the free public libraries of the United
States are the creations of private wealth, munificently
employed for the common good. The greater institutions which
have this origin are the Astor Library in New York, founded by
John Jacob Astor and enriched by his descendants; the Lenox
Library in New York, founded by James Lenox; the Peabody
Institute, in Baltimore, founded by George Peabody; the Enoch
Pratt Free Library, in Baltimore, founded by the gentleman
whose name it bears; the Newberry Library, in Chicago, founded
by the will of Walter L. Newberry, who died in 1868; the Sutro
Library in San Francisco, founded by Adolph Sutro, and the
Carnegie Libraries founded at Pittsburg, Alleghany City and
Braddock by Andrew Carnegie. By the will of John Crerar, who
died in 1889, trustees for Chicago are in possession of an
estate estimated at $2,500,000 or $3,000,000, for the
endowment of a library which will soon exist. The intention of
the late Samuel J. Tilden, former Governor of the State of New
York, to apply the greater part of his immense estate to the
endowment of a free library in the City of New York, has been
partially defeated by contesting heirs; but the just feeling
of one among the heirs has restored $2,000,000 to the purpose
for which $5,000,000 was appropriated in Mr. Tilden's intent.
Steps preparatory to the creation of the library are in
progress. The lesser libraries, and institutions including
libraries of considerable importance, which owe their origin
to the public spirit and generosity of individual men of
wealth, are quite too numerous in the country to be catalogued
in this place. In addition to such, the bequests and gifts
which have enriched the endowment of libraries otherwise
founded are beyond computation.
{2023}
LIBRARIES:
United States of America:
Government Departmental Libraries at Washington.
A remarkable creation of special libraries connected with the
departments and bureaus of the national Government, has
occurred within a few years past. The more important among
them are the following:
Department of Agriculture,
20,000 volumes and 15,000 pamphlets;
Department of Justice, 21,500 volumes;
Department of State, 50,000 volumes;
Department of the Interior, 11,500;
Navy Department, 24,518;
Post Office Department, 10,000;
Patent Office Scientific Library,
50,000 volumes and 10,000 pamphlets;
Signal Office, 10,540 volumes;
Surgeon General's Office,
104,300 volumes and 161,700 pamphlets (reputed to be the best
collection of medical literature, as it is certainly the best
catalogued medical library, in the world);
Treasury Department, 21,000 volumes;
Bureau of Education,
45,000 volumes and 120,000 pamphlets;
Coast and Geodetic Survey,
12,000 volumes and 4,000 pamphlets;
Geological Survey,
30,414 volumes, and 42,917 pamphlets;
Naval Observatory,
13,000 volumes and 3,000 pamphlets;
United States Senate, 72,592 volumes;
United States House of Representatives,
125,000 (both of these being distinct from the great Library
of Congress, which contained, in 1891, 659,843 volumes);
War Department, 30,000 volumes.
LIBRARIES:
Canada.
"In 1779 a number of the officers stationed at Quebec, and of
the leading merchants, undertook the formation of a
subscription library. The Governor, General Haldimand, took an
active part in the work, and ordered on behalf of the
subscribers £500 worth of books from London. The selection was
entrusted to Richard Cumberland, the dramatist: and an
interesting letter from the Governor addressed to him,
describing the literary wants of the town and the class of
books to be sent, is now in the Public Archives. A room for
their reception was granted in the Bishop's Palace; and as
late as 1806, we learn from Lambert's Travels that it was the
only library [?] in Canada. Removed several times, it slowly
increased, until in 1882 it numbered 4,000 volumes. The list
of subscribers having become very much reduced, it was leased
to the Quebec Literary Association in 1843. In 1854 a portion
of it was burnt with the Parliament Buildings, where it was
then quartered; and finally in 1866 the entire library,
consisting of 6,990 volumes, were sold, subject to conditions,
to the Literary and Historical Society for a nominal sum of
$500. … Naturally on the organization of each of the
provinces, libraries were established in connection with the
Parliaments. We have therefore the following:
Nova Scotia, Halifax, 25,319;
New Brunswick, Fredericton, 10,850;
Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, 4,000;
Quebec, Quebec, 17,400;
Ontario, Toronto, 40,000;
Manitoba, Winnipeg, 10,000;
Northwest Territory, Regina, 1,480;
British Columbia, Victoria, 1,200;
Dominion of Canada, Ottawa, 120,000.
Total volumes in Parliamentary libraries, 230,249.
By far the most important of our Canadian libraries is the
Dominion Library of Parliament at Ottawa. Almost corresponding
with the Congressional Library at Washington in its sources of
income and work, it has grown rapidly during the past ten
years, and now numbers 120,000 volumes. Originally established
on the union of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada in
1841, it was successively removed with the seat of government
from Kingston to Montreal, to Quebec, to Toronto, again to
Quebec, and finally to Ottawa. … The 38 colleges in Canada
are provided with libraries containing 429,470 volumes, or an
average of 11,302. The senior of these, Laval College, Quebec,
is famous as being, after Harvard, the oldest on the
continent, being founded by Bishop Laval in 1663. … In 1848
the late Dr. Ryerson, Superintendent of Education from
1844-1876, drafted a school bill which contained provisions
for school and township libraries, and succeeded in awakening
a deep interest in the subject. … In 1854 Parliament passed
the requisite act and granted him the necessary funds to carry
out his views in the matter. The regulations of the department
authorized each county council to establish four classes of
libraries—
1. An ordinary common school library in each schoolhouse for
the use of the children and rate-payers.

2. A general public lending library available to all the
ratepayers in the municipality.
3. A professional library of books on teaching, school
organization, language, and kindred subjects, available for
teachers only.
4. A library in any public institution under the control of
the municipality, for the use of the inmates, or in any county
jail, for the use of the prisoners. …
The proposal to establish the second class was however
premature; and accordingly, finding that mechanics institutes
were being developed throughout the towns and villages, the
Educational Department wisely aided the movement by giving a
small grant proportionate to the amount contributed by the
members and reaching a maximum of $200, afterwards increased
to $400 annually. In 1869 these had grown to number 26; in
1880, 74; and in 1886, 125. The number of volumes possessed by
these 125 is 206,146, or an average of 1,650. … In the
cities, however, the mechanics institute, with its limited
number of subscribers, has been found unequal to the task
assigned it, and accordingly, in 1882, the Free Libraries Act
was passed, based upon similar enactments in Britain and the
United States. … By the Free Libraries Act, the maximum of
taxation is fixed at ½ a mill on the annual assessment. …
None of the other provinces have followed Ontario in this
matter."
J. Bain,
Brief Review of the Libraries of Canada
(Thousand Islands Conference of Librarians, 1887).
"The total number of public libraries in Canada of all kinds
containing 1,000 or more volumes is 202, and of this number
the Province of Ontario alone has 152, or over three-fourths
of all, while Quebec has 27 or over one-half of the remaining
fourth, the other provinces having from 2 to 6 libraries each.
The total number of volumes and pamphlets in all the libraries
reported is 1,478,910, of which the Province of Ontario has
863,332 volumes, or almost 60 per cent, while the Province of
Quebec has 490,354, or over 33 percent; Nova Scotia, 48,250
volumes, or 3½ per cent; New Brunswick, 34,894 volumes, a
little over 2.3 per cent; Manitoba, 31,025 volumes, or 2.1 per
cent; British Columbia, 10,225 volumes, or not quite 0.7 per
cent; and Prince Edward Island, 5,200 volumes, or over 0.3 per
cent of the total number."
V. Flint,
Statistics [1891] of Public Libraries
in the United States and Canada
(United States Bureau of Education, Circular
of Information No.7, 1893).
LIBRARIES:
Mexico.
The National Library of Mexico contains 155,000 books, besides
manuscripts and pamphlets.
{2024}
LIBRARIES:
China.
The Imperial Library.
"It would be surprising if a people like the Chinese, who have
the literary instinct so strongly developed, had not at an
early date found the necessity of those great collections of
books which are the means for carrying on the great work of
civilization. China had her first great bibliothecal
catastrophe two centuries before the Christian era, when the
famous edict for the burning of the books was promulgated.
Literature and despotism have never been on very good terms,
and the despot of Tsin, finding a power at work which was
unfavorable to his pretensions, determined to have all books
destroyed except those relating to agriculture, divination and
the history of his own house. His hatred to books included the
makers of them, and the literati have not failed to make his
name execrated for his double murders of men and books. When
the brief dynasty of Tsin passed, the Princes of Han showed
more appreciation of culture, and in 190 B. C. the atrocious
edict was repealed, and the greatest efforts made to recover
such literary treasures as had escaped the destroyer. Some
classics are said to have been rewritten from the dictation of
scholars who had committed them to memory. Some robbers broke
open the tomb of Seang, King of Wei, who died B. C. 295, and
found in it bamboo tablets containing more than 100,000 peen
[bamboo slips]. These included a copy of the Classic of
Changes and the Annals of the Bamboo Books, which indeed take
their title from this circumstance. This treasure trove was
placed in the Imperial Library. So the Shoo-king is said to
have been found in a wall where it had been hidden by a
descendant of Confucius, on the proclamation of the edict
against books. Towards the close of the first century a
library had been formed by Lew Heang and his son Lew Hin. …
Succeeding dynasties imitated more or less this policy, and
under the later Han dynasty great efforts were made to restore
the library. … In the troubles at the close of the second
century the palace at Lo-Yang was burned, and the greater part
of the books destroyed. … Another Imperial collection at
Lo-Yang, amounting to 29,945 books, was destroyed A. D. 311.
In A. D. 431, Seäy Ling-Yuen, the keeper of the archives, made
a catalogue of 4,582 books in his custody. Another catalogue
was compiled in 473, and recorded 5,704 books. Buddhism and
Taouism now began to contribute largely to the national
literature. Amongst the other consequences of the overthrow of
the Tse dynasty at the end of the fifth century was the
destruction of the royal library of 18,010 books. Early in the
next century a collection of 33,106 books, not including the
Buddhist literature, was made chiefly, it is said, by the
exertions of Jin Fang, the official curator. The Emperor
Yuen-te removed his library, then amounting to 70,000 books,
to King Chow, and the building was burnt down when he was
threatened by the troops of Chow. The library of the later Wei
dynasty was dispersed in the insurrection of 531, and the
efforts made to restore it were not altogether successful. The
later Chow collected a library of 10,000 books, and, on the
overthrow of the Tse dynasty, this was increased by a mass of
5,000 mss. obtained from the fallen dynasty. When towards the
close of the sixth century the Suy became masters of the
empire they began to accumulate books. … The Tang dynasty
are specially remarkable for their patronage of literature.
Early in the eighth century the catalogue extended to 53,915
books, and a collection of recent authors included 28,469
books. Printing began to supersede manuscript in the tenth
century, plentiful editions of the classics appeared and
voluminous compilations. Whilst the Sung were great patrons of
literature, the Leaou were at least lukewarm, and issued an
edict prohibiting the printing of books by private persons.
The Kin had books translated into their own tongue, for the
benefit of the then Mongolian subjects. A similar policy was
pursued by the Yuen dynasty, under whom dramatic literature
and fiction began to flourish. In the year 1406, the printed
books in the Imperial Library are said to have amounted to
300,000 printed books and twice the number of mss. … The
great Imperial Library was founded by K'in Lung in the last
century. In response to an imperial edict, many of the
literati and book-lovers placed rare editions at the service
of the government, to be copied. The Imperial Library has many
of its books, therefore, in mss. Chinese printing, however, is
only an imperfect copy of the caligraphy of good scribes. Four
copies were made of each work. One was destined for the Wan
Yuen Repository at Peking; a second for the Wan-tsung
Repository at Kang-ning, the capital of Kiang-su province; a
third for the Wan-hwui Repository at Yang-chou-fu, and the
fourth for the Wan-lan Repository at Hong-Chou, the capital of
Cheh-Kiang. A catalogue was published from which it appears
that the library contained from ten to twelve thousand
distinct works, occupying 168,000 volumes. The catalogue is in
effect an annotated list of Chinese literature, and includes
the works which were still wanting to the library and deemed
essential to its completion. Dr. D. J. McGowan, who visited
the Hong-Chou collection, says that it was really intended for
a public library, and that those who applied for permission to
the local authorities, not only were allowed access, but were
afforded facilities for obtaining food and lodging, 'but from
some cause or other the library is rarely or never consulted.'
Besides the Imperial, there are Provincial, Departmental and
District Libraries. Thus, the examination hall of every town
will contain the standard classical and historical books. At
Canton and other cities there are extensive collections, but
their use is restricted to the mandarins. There are
collections of books and sometimes printing presses in
connection with the Buddhist monasteries."
W. E. A. Axon,
Notes on Chinese Libraries
(Library Journal, January and February, 1880).
For an account of the ancient library of Chinese classics in
stone,
See EDUCATION, ANCIENT: CHINA.
{2025}
LIBRARIES:
Japan.
"The Tokyo Library is national in its character, as the
Congressional Library of the United States, the British Museum
of Great Britain, etc. It is maintained by the State, and by
the copyright Act it is to receive a copy of every book,
pamphlet, etc., published in the empire. The Tokyo Library was
established in 1872 by the Department of Education with about
70,000 volumes. In 1873 it was amalgamated with the library
belonging to the Exhibition Bureau and two years later it was
placed under the control of the Home Department, while a new
library with the title of Tokyo Library was started by the
Education Department at the same time with about 28,000
volumes newly collected. Thus the Tokyo Library began its
career on a quite slender basis; but in 1876, the books
increased to 68,953, and in 1877 to 71,853. Since that time,
both the numbers of books and visitors have steadily
increased, so much so that in 1884 the former reached 102,350
and latter 115,986, averaging 359 persons per one day. The
library was then open free to all classes; but the presence of
too many readers of the commonest text-books and light
literature was found to have caused much hindrance to the
serious students. … This disadvantage was somewhat remedied
by introducing the fee system, which, of course, placed much
restriction to the visitors of the library. … It is very
clear from the character of the library that it is a reference
library and not a circulating library. But as there are not
any other large and well-equipped libraries in Tokyo, a system
of 'lending out' is added, something like that of Königliche
Bibliothek zu Berlin, with a subscription of 5 yen (about $5)
per annum. … The Tokyo Library now contains 97,550 Japanese
and Chinese books and 25,559 European books, besides about
100,000 of duplicates, popular books, etc., which are not
used. The average number of books used is 337,262 a year. …
The Library of the Imperial University, which is also under my
charge, comprises all the books belonging to the Imperial
University of Japan. These books are solely for the use of the
instructors, students, and pupils, no admittance being granted
to the general public. The library contains 77,991 European
books and 101,217 Japanese and Chinese books. As to other
smaller libraries of Japan, there are eight public and ten
private libraries in different parts of the empire. The books
contained in them are 66,912 Japanese and Chinese books and
4,731 European books with 43,911 visitors! Besides these, in
most of towns of respectable size, there are generally two or
three small private circulating libraries, which contain books
chiefly consisting of light literature and historical works
popularly treated."
I. Tanaka,
Tokyo Library
(San Francisco Conference of Librarians, 1891).
LIBRARIES:
India.
The first free library in a native state of India was opened
in 1892, with 10,000 volumes, 7,000 being in English. It was
founded by the brother of the Maharajah.
Library Journal,
volume 17, page 395.
----------LIBRARIES: End----------
LIBURNIANS, The.
See KORKYRA.
LIBYAN SIBYL.
See SIBYLS.
LIBYANS, The.
"The name of Africa was applied by the ancients only to that
small portion of country south of Cape Bon; the rest was
called Libya. The bulk of the population of the northern
coast, between Egypt and the Pillars of Hercules, was of the
Hamitic race of Phut, who were connected with the Egyptians
and Ethiopians, and to whom the name of Libyans was not
applied until a later date, as this name was originally
confined to some tribes of Arian or Japhetic race, who had
settled among the natives. From these nations sprung from Phut
descended the races now called Berbers, who have spread over
the north of Africa, from the northernmost valleys of the
Atlas to the southern limits of the Sahara, and from Egypt to
the Atlantic; perhaps even to the Canaries, where the ancient
Guanches seem to have spoken a dialect nearly approaching that
of the Berbers of Morocco. These Berbers—now called Amazigh,
or Shuluh, in Morocco; Kabyles, in the three provinces of
Algeria, Tunis, and Tripoli; Tibboos, between Fezzan and
Egypt; and Tuariks in the Sahara—are the descendants of the
same great family of nations whose blood, more or less pure,
still runs in the veins of the tribes inhabiting the different
parts of the vast territory once possessed by their ancestors.
The language they still speak, known through the labours of
learned officers of the French army in Africa, is nearly
related to that of Ancient Egypt. It is that in which the few
inscriptions we possess, emanating from the natives of Libya,
Numidia, and Mauritania in olden times, are written. The
alphabet peculiar to these natives, whilst under the
Carthaginian rule, is still used by the Tuariks. Sallust, who
was able to consult the archives of Carthage, and who seems
more accurate than any other classical writer on African
history, was acquainted with the annals of the primitive
period, anterior to the arrival of the Arian tribes and the
settlement of the Phœnician colonies. Then only three races,
unequally distributed in a triple zone, were to be met with
throughout Northern Africa. Along the shore bordering the
Mediterranean were the primitive Libyans, who were Hamites,
descendants of Phut; behind them, towards the interior, but on
the western half only, were the Getulians … ; further still
in the interior, and beyond the Sahara, were the negroes,
originally called by the Greek name 'Ethiopians, which was
afterwards erroneously applied to the Cushites of the Upper
Nile. Sallust also learnt, from the Carthaginian traditions,
of the great Japhetic invasion of the coast of Africa. … The
Egyptian monuments have acquainted us with the date of the
arrival of these Indo-Europeans in Africa, among whom were the
Libyans, properly so called, the Maxyans, and Macæ. It was
contemporary with the reigns of Seti I. and Ramses II."
F. Lenormant,
Manual of Ancient History of the East,
book 6, chapter 5 (volume 2).
See, also, NUMIDIANS; and AMORITES.
LICINIAN LAWS, The.
See ROME: B. C. 376-367.
LICINIUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 307-323.
LICTORS.
FASCES.
"The fasces were bundles of rods (virgæ) of elm or birchwood,
tied together round the handle of an axe (securis) with (most
likely red) straps. The iron of the axe, which was the
executioner's tool, protruded from the sticks. The fasces were
carried on their left shoulders by the lictors, who walked in
front of certain magistrates, making room for them, and
compelling all people to move out of the way (summovere),
barring Vestals and Roman matrons. To about the end of the
Republic, when a special executioner was appointed, the
lictors inflicted capital punishment. The king was entitled to
twelve fasces, the same number being granted to the consuls.
… The dictator was entitled to twenty-four lictors. …
Since 42 B. C. the Flamen Dialis and the Vestals also were
entitled to one lictor each. In case a higher official met his
inferior in the street, he was saluted by the lictors of the
latter withdrawing the axe and lowering the fasces."
E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
section 107, foot-note.
{2026}
LIDUS,
LEUD,
LATT, The.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.
----------LIÈGE: Start--------
LIÈGE:
The Episcopal Principality.
"Liège lies on the borderland of the French and German
speaking races. … It was the capital of an ecclesiastical
principality, whose territory extended some distance up the
river and over the wooded ridges and green valleys of the
Ardennes. The town had originally sprung up round the tomb of
St. Lambert—a shrine much frequented by pilgrims. … The
Prince Bishop of Liège was the vassal of the emperor, but his
subjects had long considered the kings of France their natural
protectors. It was in France that they found a market for
their manufactures, from France that pilgrims came to the tomb
of St. Lambert or to the sylvan shrine of St. Hubert.
Difference of language and rivalry in trade separated them
from their Dutch-speaking neighbours. We hear, as early as the
10th century, of successful attempts on the part of the people
of Liège, supported and directed by their bishops, to subdue
the lords of the castles in their neighbourhood. A population
of traders, artizans, and miners, were unlikely to submit to
the pretensions of a feudal aristocracy. Nor was there a
burgher oligarchy, as in many of the Flemish and German towns.
Every citizen was eligible to office if he could obtain a
majority of the votes of the whole male population.
Constitutional limits were imposed on the power of the bishop;
but he was the sole fountain of law and justice. By suspending
their administration he could paralyse the social life of the
State, and by his interdicts annihilate its religious life.
Yet the burghers were involved in perpetual disputes with
their bishop. When the power of the Dukes of Burgundy was
established in the Low Countries, it was to them that the
latter naturally applied for assistance against their unruly
flock. John the Fearless defeated the citizens with great
slaughter in 1408. He himself reckoned the number of slain at
25,000. In 1431 Liège was compelled to pay a fine of 200,000
crowns to the Duke of Burgundy." The Duke—Philip the
Good—afterwards forced the reigning bishop to resign in favor
of a brother of the Duke of Bourbon, a dissolute boy of
eighteen, whose government was reckless and intolerable.
P. F. Willert,
Reign of Lewis XI.,
pages 93-94.
ALSO IN:
J. F. Kirk,
History of Charles the Bold,
book 1, chapter 7.
LIÈGE: A. D. 1467-1468.
War with Charles the Bold of Burgundy
and destruction of the city.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467-1468;
also, DINANT.
LIÈGE: A. D. 1691.
Bombardment by the French.
The Prince-bishop of Liège having joined the League of
Augsburg against Louis XIV., and having received troops of the
Grand Alliance into his city, the town was bombarded in May,
1691, by the French General Boufflers. There was no attempt at
a siege; the attack was simply one of destructive malice, and
the force which made it withdrew speedily.
H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
volume 2, chapter 2.
LIÈGE: A. D. 1702.
Reduced by Marlborough.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.
LIÈGE: A. D. 1792-1793.
Occupation and surrender by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
and 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).
----------LIÈGE: Start--------
----------LIEGNITZ: Start----------
LIEGNITZ, The Battle of (1241).
On the 9th of April, A. D. 1241, the Mongols, who had already
overrun a great part of Russia, defeated the combined forces
of Poland, Moravia and Silesia in a battle which filled all
Europe with consternation. It was fought near Lignitz (or
Liegnitz), on a plain watered by the river Keiss, the site
being now occupied by a village called Wahlstadt, i. e.,
"Field of Battle." "It was a Mongol habit to cut off an ear
from each corpse after a battle, so as to have a record of the
number slain; and we are told they filled nine sacks with
these ghastly trophies," from the field of Lignitz.
H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
part 1, page 144.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.
LIEGNITZ:
Battle of (1760).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1760.
----------LIEGNITZ: End----------
LIGERIS, The.
The ancient name of the river Loire.
LIGHT BRIGADE, The Charge of the.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).
LIGII, The.
See LYGIANS.
LIGNY, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).
LIGONIA.
See MAINE: A. D. 1629-1631; and 1643-1677.
LIGURIAN REPUBLIC, The.
The mediæval republic of Genoa is often referred to as the
Ligurian Republic; but the name was distinctively given by
Napoleon to one of his ephemeral creations in Italy.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER), and 1804-1805.
LIGURIANS, The.
"The whole of Piedmont in its present extent was inhabited by
the Ligurians: Pavia, under the name of Ticinum, was founded
by a Ligurian tribe, the Lævians. When they pushed forward
their frontier among the Apennines into the Casentino on the
decline of the Etruscans, they probably only recovered what
had before been wrested from them. Among the inhabitants of
Corsica there were Ligurians. … The Ligurians and Iberians
were anciently contiguous; whereas in aftertimes they were
parted by the Gauls. We are told by Scylax, that from the
borders of Iberia, that is, from the Pyrenees, to the Rhone,
the two nations were dwelling intermixed. … But it is far
more probable that the Iberians came from the south of the
Pyrenees into Lower Languedoc, as they did into Aquitaine, and
that the Ligurians were driven back by them. When the Celts,
long after, moving in an opposite direction, reached the shore
of the Mediterranean, they too drove the Ligurians close down
to the coast, and dwelt as the ruling people amongst them, in
the country about Avignon, as is implied by the name
Celto-Ligurians. … Of their place in the family of nations
we are ignorant: we only know that they were neither Iberians
nor Celts."
G. B. Niebuhr,
History of Rome,
volume 1.
"On the coast of Liguria, the land on each side of the city of
Genoa, a land which was not reckoned Italian in early times,
we find people who seem not to have been Aryan. And these
Ligurians seem to have been part of a race which was spread
through Italy and Sicily before the Aryan settlements, and to
have been akin to the non-Aryan inhabitants of Spain and
southern Gaul, of whom the Basques … remain as a remnant."
E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
I. Taylor,
Origin of the Aryans,
chapter 2, section 7.
See, also, APPENDIX A, VOLUME 1.
{2027}
----------LILLE: Start--------
LILLE: A. D. 1583.
Submission to Spain.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585
LIMITS OF THE UNITED PROVINCES.
LILLE: A. D. 1667.
Taken by the French.
See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.
LILLE: A. D. 1668.
Ceded to France.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.
LILLE: A. D. 1708.
Siege and capture by Marlborough and Prince Eugene.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.
LILLE: A. D. 1713.
Restoration to France.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
----------LILLE: End--------
LILLEBONNE, Assembly of.
A general assembly of Norman barons convened by Duke William,
A. D. 1066, for the considering of his contemplated invasion
of England.
E. A. Freeman,
Norman Conquest,
chapter 13, section 3 (volume 3).
LILLIBULLERO.
"Thomas Wharton, who, in the last Parliament, had represented
Buckinghamshire, and who was already conspicuous both as a
libertine and as a Whig, had written [A. D. 1688, just prior
to the Revolution which drove James II. from the English
throne] a satirical ballad on the administration of Tyrconnel
[Richard Talbot, Earl of Tyrconnel, James' Lord Deputy in
Ireland.]
See IRELAND: A. D. 1685-1688.
In this little poem an Irishman congratulates a brother
Irishman, in a barbarous jargon, on the approaching triumph of
Popery and of the Milesian race. … These verses, which were
in no respect above the ordinary standard of street poetry,
had for burden some gibberish which was said to have been used
as a watchword by the insurgents of Ulster in 1641. The verses
and the tune caught the fancy of the nation. From one end of
England to the other all classes were constantly singing this
idle rhyme. It was especially the delight of the English army.
More than seventy years after the Revolution, a great writer
delineated, with exquisite skill, a veteran who had fought at
the Boyne and at Namur. One of the characteristics of the good
old soldier is his trick of whistling Lillibullero. Wharton
afterwards boasted that he had sung a King out of three
kingdoms. But in truth the success of Lillibullero was the
effect, and not the cause, of that excited state of public
feeling which produced the Revolution. … The song of
Lillibullero is among the State Poems. In Percy's Relics the
first part will be found, but not the second part, which was
added after William's landing."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 9, with foot-note.
ALSO IN:
W. W. Wilkins,
Political Ballads of the 17th and 18th Centuries,
volume 1, page 275.
LILY OF FLORENCE, The.
See FLORENCE: ORIGIN AND NAME.
----------LILYBÆUM: Start--------
LILYBÆUM: B. C. 368.
Siege by Dionisius.
"This town, close to the western cape of Sicily, appears to
have arisen as a substitute for the neighbouring town of Motye
(of which we hear little more since its capture by Dionysius
in 396 B. C.), and to have become the principal Carthaginian
station." Lilybæum was first besieged and then blockaded by
the Syracuse tyrant, Dionysius, B. C. 368; but he failed to
reduce it. It was made a powerful stronghold by the
Carthaginians.
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 83.
LILYBÆUM: B. C. 277.
Siege by Pyrrhus.
See ROME: B. C. 282-275.
LILYBÆUM: B. C. 250-241.
Siege by the Romans.
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
----------LILYBÆUM: End--------
LIMA:
Founded by Pizarro (1535).
See PERU: A. D. 1533-1548.
LIMBURG:
Capture by the Dutch (1632).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.
----------LIMERICK: Start--------
LIMERICK: A. D. 1690-1691.
Sieges and surrender.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.
LIMERICK: A. D. 1691.
The treaty of surrender and its violation.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1691.
----------LIMERICK: End--------
LIMES, The.
This term was applied to certain Roman frontier-roads. "Limes
is not every imperial frontier, but only that which is marked
out by human hands, and arranged at the same time for being
patrolled and having posts stationed for frontier-defence,
such as we find in Germany and in Africa. … The Limes is
thus the imperial frontier-road, destined for the regulation
of frontier-intercourse, inasmuch as the crossing of it was
allowed only at certain points corresponding to the bridges of
the river boundary, and elsewhere forbidden. This was
doubtless effected in the first instance by patrolling the
line, and, so long as this was done, the Limes remained a
boundary road. It remained so, too, when it was fortified on
both sides, as was done in Britain and at the mouth of the
Danube; the Britannic wall is also termed Limes."
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 4, foot-note.
LIMIGANTES, The.
The Limigantes were a tribe occupying, in the fourth century,
a region of country between the Danube and the Theiss, who
were said to have been formerly the slaves of a Sarmatian
people in the same territory and to have overpowered and
expelled their masters. The latter, in exile, became
dependents of the warlike nation of the Quadi. At the end of a
war with the latter, A. D. 357-359, in which they were greatly
humbled, the Emperor Constantius commanded the Limigantes to
surrender their stolen territory to its former owners. They
resisted the mandate and were exterminated.
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapters 18-19.
The Limigantes were a branch of the Iazyges or Jazyges, a
nomadic Sarmatian or Sclavonic people who were settled in
earlier times on the Palus Mæotis.
LIMISSO.
See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1118-1310.
----------LIMOGES: Start--------
LIMOGES,
Origin of the town.
See LEMOVICES.
LIMOGES, A. D. 1370.
Massacre by the Black Prince.
A foul crime which stains the name of "the Black Prince."
Taking the city of Limoges, in France, after a short siege, A.
D. 1370, he ordered a promiscuous massacre of the population,
and more than 3,000 men, women and children were slain, while
the town was pillaged and burned.
Froissart,
Chronicles
(translated by Johnes),
book 1, chapters 288, 290.
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.
----------LIMOGES: End--------
LIMONUM.
See POITIERS.
LIMOUSIN,
Early inhabitants of the.
See LEMOVICES.
{2028}
LINCOLN, Abraham.
Election to the Presidency.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
LINCOLN, Abraham.
Inauguration and Presidential administration.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-MARCH), to 1865 (APRIL).
LINCOLN, Abraham.
Gettysburg address.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (NOVEMBER).
LINCOLN, Abraham.
Reëlection to the Presidency.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY-NOVEMBER).
LINCOLN, Abraham.
Visit to Richmond.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).
LINCOLN, Abraham.
Assassination.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).
LINCOLN, General Benjamin,
in the War of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778-1779 THE WAR CARRIED INTO THE SOUTH;
1779 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER);
1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).
LINCOLN, Battle of.
See LAMBETH, TREATY OF.
LINCOLN, Origin of.
See LINDUM.
LINDISWARA,
LINDESFARAS.
"Dwellers about Lindum," or Lincoln; a name given for a time
to the Angles who seized and settled in that English district.
J. R. Green,
The Making of England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.
LINDSEY, Kingdom of.
One of the small and transient kingdoms of the Angles in early
England.
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 7, section 70 (volume 1).
LINDUM.
The Roman city from which sprang the English city of Lincoln.
T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5.
LINGONES, The.
A tribe in ancient Gaul whose territory embraced parts in the
modern French departments of the Haute-Marne, the Aube, the
Yonne and the Côte-d'Or.
Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2, foot-note (volume 2).
See, also, ROME: B. C. 390-347.
LINKÖPING, Battle of (1598).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1523-1604.
LION AND THE SUN, The Order of the.
A Persian order, instituted in 1808.
LION OF ST. MARK, The Winged.
The standard of the Venetian republic. "Historians have failed
or omitted to fix the precise time when this ensign of the
lion was first adopted by the Republic. But when the two
granite columns ['trophies of a successful raid in the
Archipelago'], still the conspicuous ornaments of the Piazetta
of St. Mark, were erected, in or about 1172, a winged lion in
bronze was placed on one of them, and a statue of St.
Theodore, a patron of earlier standing, on the other."
The Republic of Venice
(Quarterly Review, Oct., 1874),
page 423.
See, also, VENICE: A. D. 829.
LIPAN, Battle of (1434).
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.
----------LISBON: Start--------
LISBON:
Origin and early history.
See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.
LISBON: A. D. 1147.
Capture from the Moors.
Made the capital of Portugal.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.
LISBON: A. D. 1755.
The great Earthquake.
"On the morning of the 1st of November in this year, at the
same period, though in less or greater degree a far-spreading
earthquake ran through great part both of Europe and Barbary.
In the north its effects, as usual with earthquakes in that
region, were happily slight and few. Some gentle vibrations
were felt as far as Dantzick. … In Madrid a violent shock
was felt, but no buildings, and only two human beings,
perished. In Fez and in Morocco, on the contrary, great
numbers of houses fell down, and great multitudes of people
were buried beneath the ruins. But the widest and most fearful
destruction was reserved for Lisbon. Already, in the year
1531, that city had been laid half in ruins by an earthquake.
The 1st of November 1755 was All Saints' Day, a festival of
great solemnity; and at nine in the morning all the churches
of Lisbon were crowded with kneeling worshippers of each sex,
all classes, and all ages, when a sudden and most violent
shock made every church reel to its foundations. Within the
intervals of a few minutes two other shocks no less violent
ensued, and every church in Lisbon—tall column and towering
spire—was hurled to the ground. Thousands and thousands of
people were crushed to death, and thousands more grievously
maimed, unable to crawl away, and left to expire in lingering
agony. The more stately and magnificent had been the fabric,
the wider and more grievous was the havoc made by its ruin.
About one fourth, as was vaguely computed, of all the houses
in the city toppled down. The encumbered streets could scarce
afford an outlet to the fugitives; 'friends,' says an
eye-witness, 'running from their friends, fathers from their
children, husbands from their wives, because every one fled
away from their habitations full of terror, confusion, and
distraction.' The earth seemed to heave and quiver like an
animated being. The sun was darkened with the clouds of lurid
dust that arose. Frantic with fear a headlong multitude rushed
for refuge to a large and newly built stone pier which jutted
out into the Tagus, when a sudden convulsion of the stream
turned this pier bottom uppermost, like a ship on its keel in
the tempest, and then engulphed it. And of all the living
creatures who had lately thronged it,—full 3,000, it is
said,—not one, even as a corpse, ever rose again. From the
banks of the river other crowds were looking on in speechless
affright, when the river itself came rushing in upon them like
a torrent, though against wind and tide. It rose at least
fifteen feet above the highest spring tides, and then again
subsided, drawing in or dashing to pieces every thing within
its reach, while the very ships in the harbour were violently
whirled around. Earth and water alike seemed let loose as
scourges on this devoted city. 'Indeed every clement,' says a
person present, 'seemed to conspire to our destruction … for
in about two hours after the shock fires broke out in three
different parts of the city, occasioned from the goods and the
kitchen fires being all jumbled together.' At this time also
the wind grew into a fresh gale, which made the fires spread
in extent and rage with fury during three days, until there
remained but little for them to devour. Many of the maimed and
wounded are believed to have perished unseen and unheeded in
the flames; some few were almost miraculously rescued after
being for whole days buried where they fell, without light or
food or hope. The total number of deaths was computed at the
time as not less than 30,000."
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapter 32 (volume 4).
LISBON: A. D. 1807.
Occupied by the French.
Departure of the Royal Family for Brazil.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.
----------LISBON: End--------
{2029}
LISLE.
See LILLE.
LISSA, Battle of (1866).
See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.
LIT DE JUSTICE.
See BED OF JUSTICE.
----------LITHUANIA: Start--------
LITHUANIA: A. D. 1235.
Formation of the Grand Duchy.
"From 1224 [when Russia was prostrated by the Mongol conquest]
to 1487 … is a period of obscuration in Russian history,
during which Russia is nothing in the Slavonian world. The
hour of Russia's weakness was that in which the Lithuanians,
formerly a mere chaos of Slavo-Finnish tribes, assumed
organization and strength. Uniting the original Lithuanian
tribes into one government, and extending his sway over those
territories, formerly included in the Russian Empire, which
the Mongolian destruction of the Russian power had left
without a ruler, a native chief, named Ringold, founded (1235)
a new state called the Grand-Duchy of Lithuania. The limits of
this state extended from the Baltic coast, which it touched at
a single point, across the entire continent, almost to the
Black Sea, with Lithuania proper as its northern nucleus, and
the populations along the whole course of the Dnieper as its
subjects. The Lithuanians, thus made formidable by the extent
of their dominion, were at this time still heathens."
Poland: Her History and Prospects
(Westminster Review, January, 1855),
page 119.
See, also, RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.
LITHUANIA: A. D. 1386. Union with Poland under the Jagellon
kings.
See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.
----------LITHUANIA: End--------
LITHUANIANS.
LETTS.
"They and the Slavonians are branches of the same Sarmatian
family; so, of course, their languages, though different, are
allied. But next to the Slavonic what tongues are nearest the
Lithuanic? Not the speech of the Fin, the German, or the Kelt,
though these are the nearest in geography. The Latin is liker
than any of these; but the likest of all is the ancient sacred
language of India—the Sanskrit of the Vedas, Puranas, the
Mahabharata, and the Ramayana. And what tongue is the nearest
to the Sanskrit? Not those of Tibet and Armenia, not even
those of Southern India. Its nearest parallel is the obscure
and almost unlettered languages of Grodno, Wilna, Vitepsk,
Courland, Livonia, and East Prussia. There is a difficult
problem here. … The present distribution of the Lithuanian
populations is second only in importance to that of the
Ugrians. Livonia is the most convenient starting-point. Here
it is spoken at present; though not aboriginal to the
province. The Polish, German, and Russian languages have
encroached on the Lithuanian, the Lithuanian on the Ugrian. It
is the Lett branch of the Lithuanian which is spoken by the
Letts of Livonia (Liefland), but not by the Liefs. The same is
the case in Courland. East Prussia lies beyond the Russian
empire, but it is not unnecessary to state that, as late as
the sixteenth century, a Lithuanian tongue was spoken there.
Vilna, Grodno, and Vitepsk are the proper Lithuanian
provinces. There, the original proper Lithuanic tongue still
survives; uncultivated, and day by day suffering from the
encroachment of the Russian, but, withal, in the eyes of the
ethnologist, the most important language in Europe."
R. G. Latham,
Ethnology of Europe,
chapter 6.
LITTLE BIG HORN, Battle of the.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876.
LITTLE BRETHREN.
See BEGUINES, &c.
LITTLE ROCK, Federal occupation of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).
LITTLE RUSSIA.
See RUSSIA, GREAT.
LITTLE YAHNI, Battle of (1877).
See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.
LITURGIES.
"It was not only by taxation of its members that the
[Athenian] State met its financial needs, but also by many
other kinds of services which it demanded from them, and
which, though not, like the former, producing an income, yet
nevertheless saved an expense. Such services are called
Liturgies [i. e.; properly, services for the
people.'—Footnote]. They are partly ordinary or 'encyclic'—
such, that is, as occurred annually, even in times of peace,
according to a certain order, and which all bore some relation
to worship and to the celebration of festivals—and partly
extraordinary, for the needs of war. Among the former class
the most important is the so-called Choregia, i. e., the
furnishing of a chorus for musical contests and for festivals.
… A similar though less burdensome Liturgy was the
Gymnasiarchy for those feasts which were celebrated with
gymnastic contests. The gymnasiarch, as it seems, was
compelled to have all who wished to come forward as
competitors trained in the gymnasia, to furnish them with
board during the time of training, and at the games themselves
to furnish the necessary fittings and ornaments of the place
of contest. … More important and more costly than all these
ordinary or encyclic Liturgies was the extraordinary Liturgy
of trierarchy, i. e., the equipment of a ship of war."
G. F. Schumann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3.
"The Liturgiæ, which are sometimes considered as peculiar to
the Athenians, … were common to all democracies at least [in
the Greek states], and even to certain aristocracies or
oligarchies. … The Liturgiæ of the Greeks were distinguished
by a much more generous and noble characteristic than the
corresponding services and contributions of the present day.
They were considered honorable services. … Niggardliness in
the performance of them was considered disgraceful. The state
needed no paid officer, or contractors to superintend or
undertake their execution. … The ordinary Liturgiæ … are
principally the choregia, the gymnasiarchia, and the feasting
of the tribes [or hestiasis]. … The lampadarchy, if not the
only kind, was certainly the most important and expensive kind
of gymnasiarchy. The race on foot with a torch in the hand was
a common game. The same kind of race was run with horses for
the first time at Athens in the time of Socrates. The art
consisted, besides other particulars, in running the fastest,
and at the same time not extinguishing the torch. … Since
the festivity was celebrated at night, the illumination of the
place which was the scene of the contest was necessary. Games
of this kind were celebrated specially in honor of the gods of
light and fire. … The expenses of the feasting of the tribes
were borne by a person selected for this purpose from the
tribe. … The entertainments, the expenses of which were
defrayed by means of this liturgia, were different from the
great feastings of the people, the expenses of which were paid
from the treasury of the theorica. They were merely
entertainments at the festivals of the tribes."
A. Boeckh,
Public Economy of the Athenians
(translated by Lamb),
book 3, chapters 1 and 21-23.
ALSO IN:
E. G. Bulwer-Lytton,
Athens,
book 5, chapter 2.
{2030}
LITUS, The.
In the Salic law, of the Franks, the litus appears as
representing a class in that Germanic nation. He "was no doubt
identical with the serf whom Tacitus represents as cultivating
the soil, and paying a rent in kind to his lord. That the
litus was not free is evident from the mention of his master
and the fact that he could be sold; though we find a weregild
set upon his life equal to that of a free Roman."
W. C. Perry,
The Franks,
chapter 10.
LIVERPOOL AND MANCHESTER RAILWAY, The.
See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.
LIVERPOOL MINISTRY, The,
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1813.
LIVERY, Origin of the term.
"After an ancient custom, the kings of France, at great
solemnities, gave such of their subjects as were at court
certain capes or furred mantles, with which the latter
immediately clothed themselves before leaving the court. In
the ancient 'comptes' (a sort of audits) these capes were
called 'livrées' (whence, no doubt, our word livery), because
the monarch gave them ('les livrait') himself."
J. F. Michaud,
History of the Crusades,
book 13.
LIVERY COMPANIES.
See GUILDS, MEDIÆVAL.
LIVERY OF SEIZIN.
See FEUDAL TENURES.
LIVINGSTON MANOR, The.
Robert Livingston, "secretary of Albany," son of a Scotch
clergyman, began to acquire a landed estate, by purchases from
the Indians, soon after his arrival in America, which was
about 1674. "The Mohegan tribes on the east side of the Hudson
had become reduced to a few old Indians and squaws, who were
ready to sell the lands of which they claimed the ownership.
Livingston's position as clerk of Indian affairs gave him
exceptional opportunities to select and to purchase the best
lands in desirable localities. … In 1702, Lord Bellomont
[then governor of New York] writes, 'I am told Livingston has
on his great grant of 16 miles long and 24 broad, but four or
five cottages, occupied by men too poor to be farmers, but are
his vassals.' After the close of the war [Queen Anne's War],
Livingston made more rapid progress in his improvements. He
erected flour and timber mills, and a new manor-house." In
1715 Livingston obtained from Governor Hunter a confirmatory
patent, under an exact and careful survey of his estate.
"Although it does not give the number of acres, the survey
computes the area of the manor to contain 160,240 acres. It
was now believed to be secure against any attack. … Philip,
the second proprietor, was not disturbed as to title or
limits. He was a merchant, and resided in New York, spending
his summers at the Manor House. … His son, Robert, succeeded
him as the third proprietor, but he had hardly come into
possession before he began to be harassed by his eastern
neighbors, the people of Massachusetts. … Massachusetts, by
her charter, claimed the lands lying west of her eastern
boundary to the Pacific Ocean. She had long sought to make
settlements within the province of New York. Now as her
population increased she pushed them westward, and gradually
encroached on lands within the limits of a sister province. In
April, 1752, Livingston wrote to Governor Clinton, and entered
complaint against the trespassers from Massachusetts. A long
correspondence between the governors of the two provinces
followed, but settled nothing. The trouble continued," for a
number of years, and frequent riots were incident to it, in
which several men were killed. At length, "the boundary
between New York and Massachusetts was finally settled, and
the claimants ceased their annoyance. … The Revolution was
approaching. The public mind was occupied with politics. …
Land titles ceased to be topics of discussion. The proprietors
of the old manor, and all bearing their name, with a few
unimportant exceptions, took a decided stand in favor of
independence. During the war that followed, and for some years
after its close, their title and possession of their broad
acres were undisputed. But in 1795 another effort was made to
dispossess them. The old methods of riots and arrests were
abandoned. The title was now attacked by the tenants, incited
and encouraged by the envious and disaffected. A petition,
numerously signed by the tenants of the manor, was sent to the
Legislature. … The committee to which the petition was
referred reported adversely, and this was approved by the
House on March 23, 1795. … After the failure of 1795 to
break the title, there was a season of comparative quiet
continued for nearly forty years. Then a combination was
formed by the tenants of the old manorial estates, including
those of large landed proprietors in other parts of the State,
termed 'anti-renters.' It was a civil association with a
military organization. It was their purpose to resist the
payment of rents. The tenants of the Van Rensselaer and the
Livingston Manors, being the most numerous, were the
projectors and leaders, giving laws and directions. …

Landlords and officers were intimidated by bands disguised as
Indians, and some property was destroyed. The anti-renters
carried their grievances into politics, throwing their votes
for the party which would give them the most favorable
legislation. In 1844, they petitioned the Legislature to set
aside as defective the Van Rensselaer title, and put the
tenants in legal possession of the farms they occupied. The
petition was referred to the Judiciary Committee of the
Assembly, the late Judge William Allen being chairman.
Anti-renters of known ability were on the committee, and a
favorable report was anticipated. But after a long and
thorough investigation of the title … the committee
unanimously reported against the prayer of the petition. This
put an end to the combination, and to the anti-rent war,
although resistance to the collection of rents in isolated
cases, with bloodshed and loss of life, is still [1885]
continued. The landlords, however, particularly the
Livingstons, were tired of the strife. They adopted measures
of compromise, selling to their tenants the lands they
occupied at reduced valuations. Only small portions of the old
manor now remain in the hands of Robert Livingston's
descendants."
G. W. Schuyler,
Colonial New York,
volume I, pages 243-285.
ALSO IN:
E. P. Cheyney,
Anti-Rent Agitations in New York
(University of Pennsylvania Pubs.).
{2031}
LIVONIA: 12th-13th Centuries.
First introduction of Commerce and Christianity.
"Till the year A. D. 1158 … Livonia was well-nigh utterly
unknown to the rest of Europe. Some traders of Bremen then
visited it, and formed several settlements along the coast.
These commercial relations with their western neighbours first
opened up the country to missionary enterprise, and in the
year A. D. 1186 one of the merchant-ships of Bremen brought to
the mouth of the Düna a venerable canon named Meinhard."
Meinhard died in 1196, having accomplished little. He was
succeeded by a Cistercian abbot named Berthold, who, being
driven away by the obstinate pagans, returned wrathfully in
1198, with a crusading army, which Pope Innocent III. had
commissioned him to lead against them. This was the beginning
of a long and merciless crusading warfare waged against the
Livonians, or Lieflanders, and against their Prussian and
other Sclavonic neighbors, until all were forced to submit to
the religious rites of their conquerors and to call themselves
Christians. For the furthering of this crusade, Berthold's
successor, Albert von Apeldern, of Bremen (who founded the
town of Riga), "instituted, in the year A. D. 1201, with the
concurrence of the emperor Otho IV. and the approbation of the
Pope, the knightly 'Order of the Sword,' and placed it under
the special protection of the Virgin Mary. The members of this
order bound themselves by solemn vows to hear mass frequently,
to abstain from marriage, to lead a sober and chaste life, and
to fight against the heathen. In return for these services
they were to have and to enjoy whatever lands they might wrest
with their swords from their pagan adversaries. … Albert von
Apeldern made Riga the starting-point of his operations.
Thence, aided by Waldemar II. king of Denmark, he directed the
arms of his crusaders against Esthonia, and the neighbouring
countries of Semgallen and Courland. On these war-wasted
districts he succeeded in imposing a nominal form of
Christianity." The Order of the Sword was subsequently united
with the Teutonic Order, which turned its crusading energies
from the Moslems of the Holy Land to the heathendom of the
Baltic.
G. F. Maclear,
Apostles of Mediæval Europe,
chapters 15-16.
ALSO IN:
A. Rambaud,
History of Russia,
volume 1, chapter 9.
See, also
PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY.
LLANOS.
See PAMPAS.
LLORENS, Battle of (1645).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.
LOANO, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
LOBBY, The.
"'The Lobby' is the name given in America to persons, not
being members of a legislature, who undertake to influence its
members, and thereby to secure the passing of bills. The term
includes both those who, since they hang about the chamber,
and make a regular profession of working upon the members, are
called 'lobbyists,' and those persons who on any particular
occasion may come up to advocate, by argument or solicitation,
any particular measure in which they happen to be interested.
The name, therefore, does not necessarily impute any improper
motive or conduct, though it is commonly used in what Bentham
calls a dyslogistic sense."
J. Bryce,
The American Commonwealth,
volume 1, appendix note (B) to chapter 16.
LOBOSITZ, OR LOWOSITZ, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.
LOCH LEVEN, Mary Stuart's captivity at.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.
LOCHLANN.
The Celtic name for Norway, meaning Lakeland.
LOCKE'S CONSTITUTION FOR THE CAROLINAS.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.
LOCOFOCOS.
"In 1835, in the city and county of New York, a portion of the
democrats organized themselves into the 'equal rights' party.
At a meeting in Tammany Hall they attempted to embarrass the
proceedings of the democratic nominating committee, by
presenting a chairman in opposition to the one supported by
the regular democrats. Both parties came to a dead lock, and,
in the midst of great confusion, the committee extinguished
the lights. The equal rights men immediately relighted the
room with candles and locofoco matches, with which they had
provided themselves. From this they received the name of
locofocos, a designation which, for a time, was applied to the
whole democratic party by the opposition."
W. R. Houghton,
History of American Politics,
page 219.
LOCRI.
The city of Locri, or Locri Epizephyrii, an ancient Greek
settlement in Southern Italy, was founded by the Locrians as
early as B. C. 683. The elder Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse,
married a Locrian woman and showed great favor to the city, of
which he acquired control; but it suffered terribly from his
son, the younger Dionysius, who transferred his residence to
Locri when first driven from Syracuse.
LOCRIANS, The.
See LOKRIANS.
LODGER FRANCHISE.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.
LODI, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).
LODI, Treaty of (1454).
See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454;
and ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.
LOEN, OR STADTLOHN, Battle of (1623).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.
LŒTIC COLONIES.
During and after the civil wars of the declining years of the
Roman empire, large numbers of Germans were enlisted in the
service of the rival factions, and were recompensed by gifts
of land, on which they settled as colonists. "They were called
Lœti, and the colonies lœtic colonies, probably from the
German word 'leute,' people, because they were regarded as the
people or men of the empire."
P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 3, chapter 9, foot-note.
LOG, The.
See EPHAH.
LOG CABIN AND HARD CIDER CAMPAIGN.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840.
LOGAN CROSS ROADS, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).
LOGAN'S WRONGS.
LOGAN'S WAR.
LOGAN'S FAMOUS SPEECH.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.
LÖGBERG, The.
See THING.
LOGI, The.
See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.
LOGISTÆ AND EUTHYNI, The.
"In Athens, all accounts, with the exception of those of the
generals, were rendered to the logistæ and euthyni. Both
authorities, before and after the archonship of Euclid,
existed together at the same time. Their name itself shows
that the logistæ were auditors of accounts. The euthyni were
in immediate connection with them. … The logistæ were the
principal persons in the auditing board."
A. Boeckh,
Public Economy of Athens
(translated by Lamb),
book 2, chapter 8.
{2032}
LOGOGRAPHI, The.
The earlier Ionian Greek historians "confined their attention
to the circle of myths and antiquities connected with single
families, single cities and districts. These were the Ionic
'logographi,' so called because they noted down in easy
narrative the remarkable facts that they had collected and
obtained by inquiry as to the foundation of the cities, the
myths of the prehistoric age, and the natural, political, and
social condition of different countries."
E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).
LOGOTHETES.
A class of officers created under Justinian for the
administration of the imperial finances in Italy, after its
conquest from the Goths. Their functions corresponded with
those of a modern auditor, or comptroller.
T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 5, chapter 15 (volume 4).
LOGSTOWN.
About the middle of the 18th century, Logstown was "an
important Indian village a little below the site of the
present city of Pittsburg. Here usually resided Tanacharisson,
a Seneca chief of great note, being head sachem of the mixed
tribes which had migrated to the Ohio and its branches. He was
generally surnamed the half-king, being subordinate to the
Iroquois confederacy."
W. Irving,
Life of Washington,
volume 1, chapter 5.
LOIDIS.
See ELMET.
LOJA: Sieges and capture by the Spaniards (1482-1483).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.
LOJERA, Battle of (1353).
See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.
LOKRIANS, The.
"The coast [of Greece, in ancient times] opposite to the
western side of Eubœa, from the neighbourhood of Thermopylæ as
far as the Bœotian frontier at Anthedon, was possessed by the
Lokrians, whose northern frontier town, Alpeni, was
conterminous with the Malians. There was, however, one narrow
strip of Phokis—the town of Daphnus, where the Phokians also
touched the Eubœan sea—which broke this continuity and
divided the Lokrians into two sections,—Lokrians of Mount
Knemis, or Epiknemidian Lokrians, and Lokrians of Opus, or
Opuntian Lokrians. … Besides these two sections of the
Lokrian name, there was also a third, completely separate, and
said to have been colonised from Opus,—the Lokrians surnamed
Ozolæ,—who dwelt apart on the western side of Phokis, along
the northern coast of the Corinthian Gulf. … Opus prided
itself on being the mother-city of the Lokrian name. … The
whole length of this Lokrian coast is celebrated for its
beauty and fertility, both by ancient and modern observers."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 3 (volume 2).
LOLLARDS. The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414;
and BEGUINES.—BEGHARDS.
LOLLARDS' TOWER.
When the persecution of the Lollards, or disciples of Wyclif,
began in England, under Henry IV., the prisons were soon
crowded, and the Archbishop of Canterbury found need of
building an additional tower to his palace at Lambeth for the
custody of them. The Lollards' Tower, as it was named, is
still standing, with the rings in its walls to which the
captives were chained.
LOMBARDS, OR LANGOBARDI.
Early history.
"The Langobardi … are ennobled by the smallness of their
numbers; since, though surrounded by many powerful nations,
they derive security, not from obsequiousness, but from their
martial enterprise."
Tacitus,
Germany,
Oxford translation,
chapter 40.
"In the reign of Augustus, the Langobardi dwelt on this side
the Elbe, between Luneburg and Magdeburg. When conquered and
driven beyond the Elbe by Tiberius, they occupied that part of
the country where are now Prignitz, Ruppin, and part of the
Middle Marche. They afterward founded the Lombard kingdom in
Italy."
Tacitus,
Germany,
Oxford translation,
Translator's note.
The etymology which explains the name of the Lombards or
Langobardi by finding in it a reference to the length of their
beards is questioned by some modern writers. Sheppard ("Fall
of Rome") conjectures that the name originally meant
"long-spears" rather than "long-beards." Other writers derive
the name "from the district they inhabited on the banks of the
Elbe, where Börde (or Bord) still signifies 'a fertile plain
by the side of a river,' and a district near Magdeburg is
still called the lange Börde. According to this view,
Langobardi would signify 'inhabitants of the long bord of the
river'; and traces of their name are supposed still to occur
in such names as Bardengau and Bardewick, in the neighbourhood
of the Elbe."
Dr. W. Smith,
Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 42.
From the Elbe the Langobardi moved in time to the Danube.
"Here they encountered the Gepidæ, who, … after having taken
a leading part in the defeat and dispersion of the Huns in the
great battle of Netad [A. D. 453], had settled in the plains
of Upper Hungary and on the Transylvanian hills. For thirty
years these two powerful tribes continued a contest in which
both sides sought the assistance of the Greek emperor, and
both were purposely encouraged in their rivalry with a view to
their common destruction." In 566 the struggle was decided by
a tremendous battle in which the Gepidæ were crushed. The
Lombards, in this last encounter, had secured the aid of the
pretended Avars, then lately arrived on the Danube; but the
prestige of the overwhelming victory attached itself to the
name of the young Lombard king, Alboin. "In the days of
Charlemagne, the songs of the German peasant still told of his
beauty, his heroic qualities, and the resistless vigour of his
sword. His renown crossed the Alps, and fell, with a
foreboding sound, upon the startled ears of the Italians, now
experienced in the varied miseries of invasion."
J. G. Sheppard,
Fall of Rome,
lecture 6.
LOMBARDS: A. D. 568-573.
Conquests and settlement in Italy.
When the Lombards and the Avars crushed the nation of the
Gepidæ (see AVARS), in 566, it was one of the terms of the
bargain between them that the former should surrender to the
Avars, not only the conquered territory—in Wallachia,
Moldavia, Transylvania and part of Hungary—but, also, their
own homes in Pannonia and Noricum. No doubt the ambitious
Lombard king, Alboin, had thoughts of an easy conquest of
Italy in his mind when he assented to so strange an agreement.
Fourteen years before, the Lombard warriors had traversed the
sunny peninsula in the army of Narses, as friends and allies
of the Roman-Greeks.
{2033}
The recollection of its charms, and of its still surviving
wealth, invited them to return. Their old leader, Narses, had
been deposed from the exarchate at Ravenna; it is possible
that he encouraged their coming. "It was not an army, but an
entire nation, which descended the Alps of Friuli in the year
568. The exarch Longinus, who had succeeded Narses, shut
himself up within the walls of Ravenna, and offered no other
resistance. Pavia, which had been well fortified by the kings
of the Ostrogoths, closed its gates, and sustained a siege of
four years. Several other towns, Padua, Monzelice, and Mantua,
opposed their isolated forces, but with less perseverance. The
Lombards advanced slowly into the country, but still they
advanced; at their approach, the inhabitants fled to the
fortified towns upon the sea coast in the hope of being
relieved by the Greek fleet, or at least of finding a refuge
in the ships, if it became necessary to surrender the place.
… The islands of Venice received the numerous fugitives from
Venetia, and at their head the patriarch of Aquileia, who took
up his abode at Grado; Ravenna opened its gates to the
fugitives from the two banks of the Po; Genoa to those from
Liguria; the inhabitants of La Romagna, between Rimini and
Ancona, retired to the cities of the Pentapolis; Pisa, Rome,
Gaeta, Naples, Amalfi, and all the maritime towns of the south
of Italy were peopled at the same time by crowds of
fugitives."
J. C. L. de Sismondi,
Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 11 (volume 1).
"From the Trentine hills to the gates of Ravenna and Rome, the
inland regions of Italy became, without a battle or a siege,
the lasting patrimony of the Lombards. … One city, which had
been diligently fortified by the Goths, resisted the arms of a
new invader; and, while Italy was subdued by the flying
detachments of the Lombards, the royal camp was fixed above
three years before the western gate of Ticinum, or Pavia. …
The impatient besieger had bound himself by a tremendous oath
that age, and sex, and dignity should be confounded in a
general massacre. The aid of famine at length enabled him to
execute his bloody vow; but as Alboin entered the gate his
horse stumbled, fell, and could not be raised from the ground.
One of his attendants was prompted by compassion, or piety, to
interpret this miraculous sign of the wrath of Heaven: the
conqueror paused and relented. … Delighted with the
situation of a city which was endeared to his pride by the
difficulty of the purchase, the prince of the Lombards
disdained the ancient glories of Milan; and Pavia during some
ages was respected as the capital of the kingdom of Italy."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 45.
LOMBARDS: A. D. 573-754.
Their kingdom.
Alboin survived but a short time the conquest of his Italian
kingdom. He was murdered in June, 573, at the instigation of
his wife, the Gepid princess Rosamond, whose alliance with him
had been forced and hateful. His successor, Clef, or Clepho, a
chief elected by the assembly of the nation at Pavia, reigned
but eighteen months, when he, too, was murdered. After a
distracted period of ten years, in which there was no king,
the young son of Clepho, named Autharis, came to manhood and
was raised to the throne. "Under the standard of their new
king, the conquerors of Italy withstood three successive
invasions [of the Franks and the Alemanni], one of which was
led by Childebert himself, the last of the Merovingian race
who descended from the Alps. … During a period of 200 years
Italy was unequally divided between the kingdom of the
Lombards and the exarchate of Ravenna. … From Pavia, the
royal seat, their kingdom [that of the Lombards] was extended
to the east, the north, and the west, as far as the confines
of the Avars, the Bavarians, and the Franks of Austrasia and
Burgundy. In the language of modern geography, it is now
represented by the Terra Firma of the Venetian republic,
Tyrol, the Milanese, Piedmont, the coast of Genoa, Mantua,
Parma, and Modena, the grand duchy of Tuscany, and a large
portion of the ecclesiastical state from Perugia to the
Adriatic. The dukes, and at length the princes, of Beneventum,
survived the monarchy, and propagated the name of the
Lombards. From Capua to Tarentum, they reigned near 500 years
over the greatest part of the present kingdom of Naples."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 45.
LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774.
The Fall of their monarchy.
Charlemagne's conquest.
Until 754 the Lombard kings pursued a generally prosperous
career of aggrandizement, in Italy. They had succeeded, at the
last, in expelling the exarchs of the Eastern Empire from
Ravenna and in taking possession of that capital, with much of
the territory and many of the cities in central Italy which
depended on it. These successes inflamed their determination
to acquire Rome, which had practically resumed its
independence, and theoretically reconstituted itself a
republic, with the Pope, in fact, ruling it as an actual
prince. In 753 the Papal chair was filled by Stephen II. and
the Lombard throne by King Aistaulf, or Astolphus. The former,
being newly threatened by the latter, made a journey to the
court of the Frank king, Pippin, to solicit his aid. Pippin
was duly grateful for the sanction which the preceding pope
had given to his seizure of the Merovingian crown, and he
responded to the appeal in a vigorous way. In a short campaign
beyond the Alps, in 754, he extorted from the Lombard king a
promise to make over the cities of the exarchate to the Pope
and to respect his domain. But the promise was broken as soon
as made. The Franks were hardly out of Italy before Aistulf
was ravaging the environs of Rome and assailing its gates. On
this provocation Pippin came back the next year and humbled
the Lombard more effectually, stripping him of additional
territory, for the benefit of the Pope, taking heavy ransom
and tributes from him, and binding him by oaths and hostages
to acknowledge the supremacy of the king of the Franks. This
chastisement sufficed for nearly twenty years; but in 773 the
Pope (now Hadrian) was driven once more to appeal to the Frank
monarch for protection against his northern neighbors. Pippin
was dead and his great son Charles, or Charlemagne, had
quarrels of his own with Lombardy to second the Papal call. He
passed the Alps at the head of a powerful army, reduced Pavia
after a year-long siege and made a complete conquest of the
kingdom, immuring its late king in a cloister for the
remainder of his days. He also confirmed, it is said, the
territorial "donations" of his father to the Holy See and
added some provinces to them. "Thus the kingdom of the
Lombards, after a stormy existence of over two hundred years,
was forever extinguished.
{2034}
Comprising Piedmont, Genoa, the Milanese, Tuscany, and several
smaller states, it constituted the most valuable acquisition,
perhaps, the Franks had lately achieved. Their limits were
advanced by it from the Alps to the Tiber; yet, in the
disposal of his spoil, the magnanimous conqueror regarded the
forms of government which had been previously established. He
introduced no changes that were not deemed indispensable. The
native dukes and counts were confirmed in their dignities; the
national law was preserved, and the distributions of land
maintained, Karl receiving the homage of the Lombard lords as
their feudal sovereign, and reserving to himself only the name
of King of Lombardy."
P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
chapters 15-16.
ALSO IN:
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 49.
J. I. Mombert,
Charlemagne,
book 1, chapter 2,
and book 2, chapter 2.
J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapters 4-5.
See, also,
PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.
----------LOMBARDY: Start--------
LOMBARDY: A. D. 754.
Charlemagne's reconstitution of the kingdom.
See LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 961-1039.
The subjection to Germany.
See ITALY: A. D. 961-1039.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1056-1152.
The rise of the Republican cities.
See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1154-1183.
The wars of Frederick Barbarossa against the Communes.
The League of Lombardy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to 1174-1183;
and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
MEDIÆVAL LEAGUE OF LOMBARDY.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1183-1250.
The conflict with Frederick II.
See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1250-1520.
The Age of the Despots.
See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1520.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1277-1447.
Rise and domination of the Visconti of Milan, and the
dissolution of their threatening tyranny.
See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1310-1313.
Visit of the Emperor Henry VII.
His coronation with the Iron Crown.
See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1327-1330.
Visit and coronation of Louis IV. of Bavaria.
See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1360-1391.
The Free Companies and the wars with Florence
and with the Pope.
See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1412-1422.
Reconquest by Filippo Maria Visconti, third duke of Milan.
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1447-1454.
Disputed succession of the Visconti in Milan.
The duchy seized by Francesco Sforza.
War of Venice, Naples, and other States against Milan and
Florence.
See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1492-1544.
The struggle for the Milanese territory, until its acquisition
by the Spanish crown.
See references under MILAN: A. D. 1492-1496, to 1544.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1713.
Cession of the duchy of Milan to Austria.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1745-1746.
Occupied by the Spaniards and French
and recovered by the Austrians.
See ITALY: A. D. 1745; and 1746-1747.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1749-1792.
Under Austrian rule, after the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle.
See ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1796-1797.
Conquest by Bonaparte.
Creation of the Cisalpine Republic.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);
and 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1799.
French evacuation.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1800.
Recovery by the French.
See FRANCE: A: D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1805.
The Iron Crown bestowed on Napoleon, as King of Italy.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1814.
French evacuation.
See ITALY: A. D. 1814.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1814-1815.
Restored to Austria.
Formation of the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF;
ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815;
and AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1848-1849.
The struggle for freedom from Austrian misrule
and its failure.
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
LOMBARDY: A. D. 1859.
Emancipation from the Austrians.
Absorption in the kingdom of Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.
----------LOMBARDY: End----------
LOMBARDY, The iron crown of.
The crown of the Lombard kings was lined with an iron band,
believed to have been wrought of the nails used in the
Crucifixion. Hence it was called the Iron Crown.
J. I. Mombert,
History of Charles the Great,
book 2, chapter 2.
LONATO, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).
LONDINIUM.
The Roman name of the city of London.
See LONDON.
----------LONDON: Start----------
LONDON:
The origin of the city and its name.
"When Plautius [Aulus Plautius, who, in the reign of the
Emperor Claudius, A. D. 43, led the second Roman invasion of
Britain, that of Cæsar having been the first] withdrew his
soldiers from the marshes they had vainly attempted to cross,
he, no doubt, encamped them somewhere in the neighbourhood. I
believe the place was London. The name of London refers
directly to the marshes, though I cannot here enter into a
philological argument to prove the fact. At London the Roman
general was able both to watch his enemy and to secure the
conquests he had made, while his ships could supply him with
all the necessaries he required. When, in the autumn of the
year 43, he drew the lines of circumvallation round his camp,
I believe he founded the present metropolis of Britain. The
notion entertained by some antiquaries that a British town
preceded the Roman camp has no foundation to rest upon, and is
inconsistent with all we know of the early geography of this
part of Britain."
E. Guest,
Origines Celticæ,
volume 2, part 2, chapter 13.
"Old as it is, London is far from being one of the oldest of
British cities; till the coming of the Romans, indeed, the
loneliness of its site seems to have been unbroken by any
settlement whatever. The 'dun' was, in fact, the centre of a
vast wilderness. … We know nothing of the settlement of the
town; but its advantages as the first landing-place along the
Thames secured for it at once the command of all trading
intercourse with Gaul, and through Gaul with the empire at
large. So rapid was its growth that only a few years after the
landing of Claudius [who joined Aulus Plautius in the autumn of
43] London had risen into a flourishing port."
J. R. Green,
The Making of England,
chapter 3.
{2035}
"The derivation of 'Londinium' from 'Llyn-din,' the lake fort,
seems to agree best with the situation and the history. The
Roman could not frame to pronounce the British word 'Llyn,' a
word which must have sounded to his ears very much like
'Clun,' or 'Lun,' and the fact, if it is a fact, that Llyn was
turned into Lon, goes to increase the probability that this is
the correct derivation of the name. The first founder called
his fastness the 'Fort of the Lake,' and this is all that
remains of him or it. … London was in those days
emphatically a Llyndin, the river itself being more like a
broad lake than a stream, and behind the fortress lying the
great northern lake,' as a writer so late as Fitzstephen calls
it, where is now Moorfields. I take it, it was something very
like an island, if not quite—a piece of high ground rising
out of lake, and swamp, and estuary."
W. J. Loftie,
History of London,
chapter 1, and foot-note.
LONDON: A. D. 61.
Destruction by the Iceni.
Londinium was one of the Roman towns in Britain destroyed by
the Iceni, at the time of the furious insurrection to which
they were incited by their outraged queen Boadicea, A. D. 61.
It "was crowded with Roman residents, crowded still more at
this moment with fugitives from the country towns and villas:
but it was undefended by walls, its population of traders was
of little account in military eyes, and Suetonius sternly
determined to leave it, with all the wealth it harboured, to
the barbarians, rather than sacrifice his soldiers in the
attempt to save it. … Amidst the overthrow of the great
cities of southern Britain, not less than 70,000 Roman
colonists … perished. The work of twenty years was in a
moment undone. Far and wide every vestige of Roman
civilization was trodden into the soil. At this day the
workmen who dig through the foundations of the Norman and the
Saxon London, strike beneath them on the traces of a double
Roman city, between which lies a mass of charred and broken
rubbish, attesting the conflagration of the terrible
Boadicea."
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 51.
LONDON: 4th Century.
The Roman Augusta and its walls.
"It is certain that, either under Constantine [the emperor]
himself, or under one of his immediate successors, the outer
wall was built. Though the building of the Roman wall, which
still in a sense defines the city boundaries, is an event in
the history of London not second in importance even to its
foundation, since it made a mere village and fort with a 'tête
du pont' into a great city and the capital of provincial
Britain, yet we have no records by which an exact date can be
assigned to it. All we know is that in 350 London had no wall:
and in 369 the wall existed. The new wall must have taken in
an immense tract of what was until then open country,
especially along the Watling Street, towards Cheap and
Newgate. It transformed London into Augusta; and though the
new name hardly appears on the page of history, and never
without a reference to the older one, its existence proves the
increase in estimation which was then accorded to the place.
The object of this extensive circumvallation is not very
clear. The population to be protected might very well have
been crowded into a much smaller space. … The wall enclosed
a space of 380 acres, being 5,485 yards in length, or 3 miles
and 205 yards. The portion along the river extended from
Blackfriars to the Tower."
W. J. Loftie,
History of London,
chapter 2 (volume 1).
"The historian Ammianus Marcellinus, who wrote about A. D.
380, in the reign of Gratian, states that Londinium (he calls
it Lundinium) was in his days called Augusta. From him we
learn that Lupicinus, who was sent by Julian to repress the
inroads of the Scots and Picts, made Londinium his head
quarters, and there concerted the plan of the campaign. In the
reign of Valentinian Britain was again disturbed, not only by
the northern barbarians, but also by the Franks and Saxons.
Theodosius, who was appointed commander of the legions and
cohorts selected for this service, came from Boulogne, by way
of Rutupiæ, to Londinium, the same route taken a few years
previously by Lupicinus, and there he also matured his plan
for the restoration of the tranquillity of the province. It is
on this occasion that Marcellinus speaks twice of Londinium as
an ancient town, then called Augusta. By the anonymous
chorographer of Ravenna it is called Londinium Augusta; and it
is in this sense, a cognomen or distinguishing appellation, as
applied to a pre-eminent town or capital, that we must
probably understand the term as used by Marcellinus in
relation to Londinium. … The extent of Londinium, from
Ludgate on the west to the Tower on the east, was about a
mile, and about half a mile from the wall on the north (London
Wall) to the Thames, giving dimensions far greater than those
of any other Roman town in Britain. These were the limits of
the city when the Romans relinquished the dominion of the
island."
Charles Roach Smith,
Illustrations of Roman London,
pages 11-12.
LONDON: 4th Century.
The growth of the Roman city.
"That London gradually increased in importance beyond the
dignity of a commercial city is plain, from the mention of it
in the Itinera, which show the number of marching roads
beginning and terminating there. … London then [in the times
of Julian and Theodosius] bore the name of 'Augusta,' or
'Londinium Augusta,' and this title is only applied to cities
of pre-eminent importance. The area of Roman London was
considerable, and, from discoveries made at different times,
appears to have extended with the growth of Roman power. The
walls when the Romans left Britain reached from Ludgate, on
the west, to the Tower on the east, about one mile in length,
and from London Wall to the Thames. … It also extended
across the river on the Kentish side."
H. M. Scarth,
Roman Britain,
chapter 15.
"Roman Loudon was built on the elevated ground on both sides
of a stream, known in after time by the name of Wallbrook,
which ran into the Thames not far from Southwark Bridge. …
Its walls were identical with those which enclosed the
mediæval city of London. … The northern and north-eastern
parts of the town were occupied with extensive and—to judge
by the remains which have been brought to light—magnificent
mansions. … At the period to which our last chapter had
brought us [A. D. 353], the city had extended to the other
side of the Thames, and the borough of Southwark stands upon
ground which covers the floors of Roman houses and the pavings
of Roman streets."
T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
C. Roach Smith,
Antiquities of Roman London.
{2036}
LONDON: 6th-9th Centuries.
During the Saxon conquest and settlement.
For nearly half a century after its conquest by the
East-Saxons (which took place probably about the middle of the
6th century) London "wholly disappears from our view." "We
know nothing of the circumstances of its conquest, of the fate
of its citizens, or of the settlement of the conquerors within
its walls. That some such settlement had taken place, at least
as early as the close of the seventh century, is plain from
the story of Mellitus, when placed as bishop within its walls
[see ENGLAND: A. D. 597-685]; but it is equally plain that the
settlement was an English one, that the provincials had here
as elsewhere disappeared, and that the ruin of the city had
been complete. Had London merely surrendered to the
East-Saxons and retained its older population and municipal
life, it is hard to imagine how, within less than half a
century, its burghers could have so wholly lost all trace of
Christianity that not even a ruined church, as at Canterbury,
remained for the use of the Christian bishop, and that the
first care of Mellitus was to set up a mission church in the
midst of a heathen population. It is even harder to imagine
how all trace of the municipal institutions to which the Roman
towns clung so obstinately should have so utterly disappeared.
But more direct proofs of the wreck of the town meet us in the
stray glimpses which we are able to get of its earlier
topographical history. The story of early London is not that
of a settled community slowly putting off the forms of Roman
for those of English life, but of a number of little groups
scattered here and there over the area within the walls, each
growing up with its own life and institutions, gilds, sokes,
religious houses, and the like, and only slowly drawing
together into a municipal union which remained weak and
imperfect even at the Norman Conquest. … Its position indeed
was such that traffic could not fail to recreate the town; for
whether a bridge or a ferry existed at this time, it was here
that the traveller from Kent or Gaul would still cross the
Thames, and it was from London that the roads still diverged
which, silent and desolate as they had become, furnished the
means of communication to any part of Britain."
J. R. Green,
The Conquest of England,
pages 149 and 452-459.
"London may be said after this time [early in the 9th century]
to be no longer the capital of one Saxon kingdom, but to be
the special property of whichever king of whichever kingdom
was then paramount in all England. When the supremacy of
Mercia declined, and that of Wessex arose, London went to the
conqueror. In 823, Egbert receives the submission of Essex,
and in 827 he is in London, and in 833 a Witan is held there,
at which he presides. Such are the scanty notes from which the
history of London during the so-called Heptarchy must be
compiled. … London had to bear the brunt of the attack [of
the Danes] at first. Her walls wholly failed to protect her.
Time after time the freebooters broke in. If the Saxons had
spared anything of Roman London, it must have disappeared now.
Massacre, slavery, and fire became familiar in her streets. At
last the Danes seemed to have looked on her as their
headquarters, and when, in 872, Alfred was forced to make
truce with them, they actually retired to London as to their
own city, to recruit. To Alfred, with his military experience
and political sagacity, the possession of London was a
necessity; but he had to wait long before he obtained it. His
preparations were complete in 884. The story of the conflict
is the story of his life. His first great success was the
capture of London after a short siege: to hold it was the task
of all his later years."
W. J. Loftie,
History of London,
chapter 3 (volume 1).
See, also,
ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.
LONDON: A. D. 1013-1016.
Resistance to the Danes.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.
LONDON: 12th Century.
Magnitude and importance of the city.
"We find them [the Londoners] active in the civil war of
Stephen and Matilda. The famous bishop of Winchester tells the
Londoners that they are almost accounted as noblemen on
account of the greatness of their city; into the community of
which it appears that some barons had been received. Indeed,
the citizens, themselves, or at least the principal of them,
were called barons. It was certainly by far the greatest city
in England. There have been different estimates of its
population, some of which are extravagant; but I think it
could hardly have contained less than 30,000 or 40,000 souls
within its walls; and the suburbs were very populous."
H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 8, part 3 (volume 3).
LONDON: 14th Century.
Guilds.
Livery Companies.
See GUILDS.
LONDON: A. D. 1381.
In the hands of the followers of Wat Tyler and John Ball.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1381.
LONDON: 16th Century.
In Shakespeare's time.
"The London of those days did not present the gigantic
uniformity of the modern metropolis, and had not as yet become
wholly absorbed in the whirl of business life. It was not as
yet a whole province covered with houses, but a city of
moderate size, surveyable from end to end, with walls and
gates, beyond which lay pleasant suburbs. … Compared with
the London of today, it possessed colour and the stamp of
originality; for, as in the southern climes, business and
domestic operations were carried on in the streets—and then
the red houses with their woodwork, high gables, oriel windows
and terraces, and the inhabitants in picturesque and gay
attire. The upper circles of society did not, as yet, live
apart in other districts; the nobility still had their
mansions among the burgher class and the working people. Queen
Elizabeth might be seen driving in an unwieldy gilt coach to
some solemn service in St. Paul's Cathedral, or riding through
the city to the Tower, to her hunting grounds, to a review of
her troops, or might be seen starting for Richmond or
Greenwich, accompanied by a brilliant retinue, on one of her
magnificent barges that were kept in readiness close to where
the theatres stood. Such a scene, with but little stretch of
the imagination, might have led Shakespeare to think of the
brilliant picture of Cleopatra on the Cydnus. The Thames was
crossed by one bridge only, and was still pure and clear as
crystal; swans swam about on it, and gardens and meadows lined
its banks where we now have dusty wharfs and warehouses.
Hundreds of boats would be skimming up and down the stream,
and incessant would be the calls between the boatmen of
'Westward ho!' or 'Eastward ho!' And yet the loungers in the
Temple Gardens and at Queenhithe could amuse themselves by
catching salmon.
{2037}
In the streets crowds would be passing to and fro; above all,
the well-known and dreaded apprentices, whose business it was
to attract customers by calling out in front of the shops:
'What d'ye lack, gentles? what d'ye lack? My ware is best!
Here shall you have your choice!' &c. Foreigners, too, of
every nationality, resident in London, would be met with. Amid
all this life every now and again would be seen the
perambulation of one or other of the guilds, wedding
processions, groups of country folk, gay companies of
train-bands and archers. … The city was rich in springs and
gardens, and the inhabitants still had leisure to enjoy their
existence; time had not yet come to be synonymous with money,
and men enjoyed their gossip at the barbers' and tobacconists'
shops; at the latter, instruction was even given in the art of
smoking, and in 1614 it is said that there were no less than
7,000 such shops in London. St. Paul's was a rendezvous for
promenaders and idle folk; and on certain days, Smithfield and
its Fair would be the centre of attraction; also Bartholomew
Fair, with its puppet-shows and exhibitions of curiosities,
where Bankes and his dancing-horse Morocco created a great
sensation for a long time; Southwark, too, with its Paris
Garden, attracted visitors to see the bear-baiting; it was
here that the famous bear Sackerson put the women in a
pleasant state of flutter; Master Slender had seen the bear
loose twenty times, and taken it by the chain. No less
attractive were the bowling-alleys, the fights at the Cock-pit
and the tent-pegging in the tiltyard; and yet all these
amusements were even surpassed by the newly-risen star of the
theatre. … The population of London during the reign of the
Bloody Mary is estimated by the Venetian ambassador, Giovanni
Micheli, at 150,000, or, according to other MS. reports of
his, at 180,000 souls. The population must have increased at
an almost inconceivable rate, if we are to trust the reports
of a second Venetian ambassador, Marc Antonio Correr, who, in
1610, reckoned the number of inhabitants at 300,000 souls;
however, according to Raumer, another Venetian, Molino,
estimated the population at 300,000 in 1607. The number of
foreigners in London was extremely large, and in 1621 the
colony of foreigners of all nations found settled there
amounted to no less than 10,000 persons. Commerce, trade, and
the industries were in a very flourishing state. The Thames
alone, according to John Norden in his MS. description of
Essex (1594), gave occupation to 40,000 men as boatmen,
sailors, fishermen, and others. Great political and historical
events had put new life into the English nation, and given it
an important impetus, which manifested itself in London more
especially, and exercised a stimulating influence upon
literature and poetry. Indeed, it may be said that Shakespeare
had the good fortune of having his life cast in one of the
greatest historical periods, the gravitating point of which
lay principally in London."
K. Elze,
William Shakespeare,
chapter 3.
LONDON: A. D. 1647.
Outbreak against the Independents and the Army.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST).
LONDON: A. D. 1665
The Great Plague.
"The water supply, it is now generally acknowledged, is the
first cause of epidemic disease. In London, at the beginning
of the reign of James I., it was threefold. Some water came to
public conduits, like those in Cheap, by underground pipes
from Tyburn. Some was drawn by water-wheels and other similar
means from the Thames, polluted as it was, at London Bridge. A
third source of supply was still more dangerous: in all the
suburbs, and probably also in most houses in the city itself,
people depended on wells. What wells among habitations, and
especially filthy habitations, become, we know now, but in the
17th century, and much later, the idea of their danger had not
been started. Such being the conditions of existence in
London; the plague now and then smouldering for a year or two,
now and then breaking out as in 1603, 1625, and 1636, a long
drouth, which means resort to half dry and stagnant
reservoirs, was sufficient to call it forth in all its
strength. The heat of the summer weather in 1665 was such that
the very birds of the air were imagined to languish in their
flight. The 7th of June, said Pepys, was the hottest day that
ever he felt in his life. The deaths from the plague, which
had begun at the end of the previous year, in the suburb of
St. Giles' in the Fields, at a house in Long Acre, where two
Frenchmen had died of it, rose during June from 112 to 268.
The entries in the diary are for four months almost continuous
as to the progress of the plague. Although it was calculated
that not less than 200,000 people had followed the example of
the king and court, and fled from the doomed city, yet the
deaths increased daily. The lord mayor, Lawrence, held his
ground, as did the brave earl of Craven and General Monk, now
became duke of Albemarle. Craven provided a burial-ground, the
Pest Field, with a kind of cottage-hospital in Soho; but the
only remedy that could be devised by the united wisdom of the
corporation, fortified by the presence of the duke and the
earl, was to order fires in all the streets, as if the weather
was not already hot enough. Medical art seems to have utterly
broken down. Those of the sick who were treated by a
physician, only died a more painful death by cupping,
scarifying and blistering. The city rectors, too, who had come
back with the king, fled from the danger, as might be expected
from their antecedents, and the nonconformist lecturers who
remained had overwhelming congregations wherever they preached
repentence to the terror-stricken people. … The symptoms
were very distressing. Fever and vomiting were among the
first, and every little ailment was thought premonitory, so
that it was said at the time that as many died of fright as of
the disease itself. … The fatal signs were glandular
swellings which ran their course in a few hours, the plague
spots turning to gangrene almost as soon as they appeared. The
patients frequently expired the same day that they were
seized. … The most terrible stories of premature burial were
circulated. All business was suspended. Grass grew in the
streets. No one went about. The rumbling wheels of the cart,
and the cry, 'Bring out your dead!' alone broke the stillness
of the night. … In the first weeks of September the number
of fatal cases rose to 1,500 a day, the bills of mortality
recording 24,000 deaths between the 1st and 21st of that
month. Then at last it began to decline, but rose again at the
beginning of October.
{2038}
A change of weather at length occurred, and the average
declined so rapidly that, by the beginning of November, the
number of deaths was reduced to 1,200, and before Christmas
came it had fallen to the usual number of former years. In
all, the official statements enumerated 97,306 deaths during
the year, and, if we add those unrecorded, a very moderate
estimate of the whole mortality would place it at the
appalling figure of 100,000 at least."
W. J. Loftie,
History of London,
chapter 11 (volume 1).
ALSO IN;
S. Pepys,
Diary, 1665.
LONDON: A. D. 1666.
The Great Fire.

"While the war [with the Dutch] continued without any decisive
success on either side, a calamity happened in London which
threw the people into great consternation. Fire, breaking out
[September 2, 1666] in a baker's house near the bridge, spread
itself on all sides with such rapidity that no efforts could
extinguish it, till it laid in ashes a considerable part of
the city. The inhabitants, without being able to provide
effectually for their relief, were reduced to be spectators of
their own ruin; and were pursued from street to street by the
flames which unexpectedly gathered round them. Three days and
nights did the fire advance; and it was only by the blowing up
of houses that it was at last extinguished. … About 400
streets and 13,000 houses were reduced to ashes. The causes of
the calamity were evident. The narrow streets of London, the
houses built entirely of wood, the dry season, and a violent
east wind which blew; these were so many concurring
circumstances which rendered it easy to assign the reason of
the destruction that ensued. But the people were not satisfied
with this obvious account. Prompted by blind rage, some
ascribed the guilt to the republicans, others to the
Catholics. … The fire of London, though at that time a great
calamity, has proved in the issue beneficial both to the city
and the kingdom. The city was rebuilt in a very little time,
and care was taken to make the streets wider and more regular
than before. … London became much more healthy after the
fire."
D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 64.
"I went this morning [September 7] on foot from Whitehall as
far as London Bridge, thro' the late Fleete-street, Ludgate
hill, by St. Paules, Cheapeside, Exchange, Bishopsgate,
Aldersgate, and out to Moorefields, thence through Cornehill,
&c., with extraordinary difficulty, clambering over heaps of
yet smoking rubbish, and frequently mistaking where I was. The
ground under my feete so hot, that it even burnt the soles of
my shoes. … At my returne I was infinitely concerned to find
that goodly Church St. Paules now a sad ruine. … Thus lay in
ashes that most venerable church, one of the most ancient
pieces of early piety in ye Christian world, besides neere 100
more. … In five or six miles traversing about I did not see
one loade of timber unconsum'd, nor many stones but what were
calcin'd white as snow. … I then went towards Islington and
Highgate, where one might have seen 200,000 people of all
ranks and degrees dispers'd and lying along by their heaps of
what they could save from the fire, deploring their losse, and
tho' ready to perish for hunger and destitution, yet not
asking one penny for reliefe, which to me appear'd a stranger
sight than any I had yet beheld."
J. Evelyn,
Diary,
September 7, 1666 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
S. Pepys,
Diary, September 2-15, 1666
(volume 4).
L. Phillimore,
Sir Christopher Wren,
chapters 6-7.
LONDON: A. D. 1685.
The most populous capital in Europe.
The first lighting of the streets.
"There is reason to believe that, in 1685, London had been,
during about half a century, the most populous capital in
Europe. The inhabitants, who are now [1848] at least
1,900,000, were then probably little more than half a million.
London had in the world only one commercial rival, now long
ago outstripped, the mighty and opulent Amsterdam. … There
is, indeed, no doubt that the trade of the metropolis then
bore a far greater proportion than at present to the whole
trade of the country; yet to our generation the honest
vaunting of our ancestors must appear almost ludicrous. The
shipping which they thought incredibly great appears not to
have exceeded 70,000 tons. This was, indeed, then more than a
third of the whole tonnage of the kingdom. … It ought to be
noticed that, in the last year of the reign of Charles II.
[1685], began a great change in the police of London, a change
which has perhaps added as much to the happiness of the body
of the people as revolutions of much greater fame. An
ingenious projector, named Edward Heming, obtained letters
patent conveying to him, for a term of years, the exclusive
right of lighting up London. He undertook, for a moderate
consideration, to place a light before every tenth door, on
moonless nights, from Michaelmas to Lady Day, and from six to
twelve of the clock."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 3 (volume 1).
LONDON: A. D. 1688.
The Irish Night.
The ignominious flight of James II. from his capital, on the
morning of December 11, 1688, was followed by a wild outbreak
of riot in London, which no effective authority existed to
promptly repress. To the cry of "No Popery," Roman Catholic
chapels and the residences of ambassadors of Roman Catholic
States, were sacked and burned. "The morning of the 12th of
December rose on a ghastly sight. The capital in many places
presented the aspect of a city taken by storm. The Lords met
at Whitehall, and exerted themselves to restore tranquillity.
… In spite, however, of the well-meant efforts of the
provisional government, the agitation grew hourly more
formidable. … Another day of agitation and terror closed,
and was followed by a night the strangest and most terrible
that England had ever seen." Just before his flight, King
James had sent an order for the disbanding of Ins army, which
had been composed for the most part of troops brought over
from Ireland. A terrifying rumor that this disbanded Irish
soldiery was marching on London, and massacring men, women and
children on the road, now spread through the city. "At one in
the morning the drums of the militia beat to arms. Everywhere
terrified women were weeping and wringing their hands, while
their fathers and husbands were equipping themselves for
fight. Before two the capital wore a face of stern
preparedness which might well have daunted a real enemy, if
such an enemy had been approaching. Candles were blazing at
all the windows. The public places were as bright as at
noonday. All the great avenues were barricaded. More than
20,000 pikes and muskets lined the streets. The late daybreak
of the winter solstice found the whole City still in arms.
During many years the Londoners retained a vivid recollection
of what they called the Irish Night. … The panic had not
been confined to London. The cry that disbanded Irish soldiers
were coming to murder the Protestants had, with malignant
ingenuity, been raised at once in many places widely distant
from each other."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 10.
{2039}
LONDON: A. D. 1780.
The Gordon No-Popery Riots.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.
LONDON: A. D. 1848.
The last Chartist demonstration.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1848.
LONDON: A. D. 1851.
The great Exhibition.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851.
----------LONDON: End----------
LONDON COMPANY FOR VIRGINIA, A. D. 1606-1625.
Charter and undertakings in Virginia.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607, and after.
LONDON COMPANY FOR VIRGINIA. D. 1619.
The unused patent granted to the Pilgrims at Leyden.
See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS: A. D. 1617-1620;
and, also, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620, and 1621.
----------LONDONDERRY: Start--------
LONDONDERRY:
Origin and Name.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1607-1611.
LONDONDERRY: A. D. 1688.
The shutting of the gates by the Prentice Boys.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1685-1688.
LONDONDERRY: A. D. 1689.
The Siege.
James II. fled in December, 1688, to France, from the
Revolution in England which gave his throne to his daughter
Mary, and her husband, William of Orange. He received aid from
the French king and was landed in Ireland the following March,
to attempt the maintenance of his sovereignty in that kingdom,
if no more. Almost immediately upon his arrival he led his
forces against Londonderry, where a great part of the
Protestants of Ulster had taken refuge, and William and Mary
had been proclaimed. "The city in 1689 was contained within
the walls; and it rose by a gentle ascent from the base to the
summit of a hill. The whole city was thus exposed to the fire
of an enemy. There was no moat nor counterscarp. A ferry
crossed the river Foyle from the east gate, and the north gate
opened upon a quay. At the entrance of the Foyle was the
strong fort of Culmore, with a smaller fort on the opposite
bank. About two miles below the city were two forts—Charles
Fort and Grange Fort. The trumpeter sent by the king with a
summons to the obstinate city found the inhabitants 'in very
great disorder, having turned out their governor Lundy, upon
suspicion.' The cause of this unexpected reception was the
presence of 'one Walker, a minister.' He was opposed to Lundy,
who thought the place untenable, and counselled the townsmen
to make conditions; 'but the fierce minister of the Gospel,
being of the true Cromwellian or Cameronian stamp, inspired
them with bolder resolutions.' The reverend George Walker and
Major Baker were appointed governors during the siege. They
mustered 7,020 soldiers, dividing them into regiments under
eight colonels. In the town there were about 30,000 souls; but
they were reduced to a less burdensome number, by 10,000
accepting an offer of the besieging commander to restore them
to their dwellings. There were, according to Lundy's
estimation, only provisions for ten days. The number of cannon
possessed by the besieged was only twenty. On the 20th of
April the city was invested, and the bombardment was begun.
… No impression was made during nine days upon the
determination to hold out; and on the 29th King James retraced
his steps to Dublin, in considerable ill humour. The siege
went on for six weeks with little change. Hamilton was now the
commander of James's forces. The garrison of Londonderry and
the inhabitants were gradually perishing from fatigue and
insufficient food. But they bravely repelled an assault, in
which 400 of the assailants fell. … Across the narrow part
of the river, from Charles Fort to Grange Fort, the enemy
stretched a great boom of fir-timber, joined by iron chains,
and fastened on either shore by cables of a foot thick. On the
15th of June an English fleet of thirty sail was descried in
the Lough. Signals were given and answered; but the ships lay
at anchor for weeks. At the end of June, Baker, one of the
heroic governors, died. Hamilton had been superseded in his
command by Rosen, who issued a savage proclamation, declaring
that unless the place were surrendered by the 1st of July, he
would collect all the Protestants from the neighbouring
districts, and drive them under the walls of the city to
starve with those within the walls. A famished troop came thus
beneath the walls of Londonderry, where they lay starving for
three days. The besieged immediately threatened to hang all
the prisoners within the city. This threat had its effect, and
the famished crowd wended back their way to their solitary
villages. It is but justice to James to say that he expressed
his displeasure at this proceeding."
C. Knight,
Crown History of England,
chapter 34.
"The state of the city was, hour by hour, becoming more
frightful. The number of the inhabitants had been thinned more
by famine and disease than by the fire of the enemy. Yet that
fire was sharper and more constant than ever. … Every attack
was still repelled. But the fighting men of the garrison were
so much exhausted that they could scarcely keep their legs.
Several of them, in the act of striking at the enemy, fell
down from mere weakness. A very small quantity of grain
remained, and was doled out by mouthfuls. The stock of salted
hides was considerable, and by gnawing them the garrison
appeased the rage of hunger. Dogs, fattened on the blood of
the slain who lay unburied round the town, were luxuries which
few could afford to purchase. The price of a whelp's paw was
five shillings and sixpence. Nine horses were still alive, and
but barely alive. They were so lean that little meat was
likely to be found upon them. It was, however, determined to
slaughter them for food. … The whole city was poisoned by
the stench exhaled from the bodies of the dead and of the half
dead. … It was no slight aggravation of the sufferings of
the garrison that all this time the English ships were seen
far off in Lough Foyle." At length, positive orders from
England compelled Kirke, the commander of the relieving
expedition "to make an attempt which, as far as appears, he
might have made, with at least an equally fair prospect of
success, six weeks earlier." Two merchant ships, the Mountjoy
and the Phœnix, loaded with provisions, and the Dartmouth, a
frigate of thirty-six guns, made a bold dash up the river,
broke the great boom, ran the gauntlet of forts and batteries,
and reached the city at ten o'clock in the evening of the 28th
of July.
{2040}
The captain of the Mountjoy was killed in the heroic
undertaking, but Londonderry, his native town, was saved. The
enemy continued their bombardment for three days more. "But,
on the third night, flames were seen arising from the camp;
and, when the first of August dawned, a line of smoking ruins
marked the site lately occupied by the huts of the besiegers.
… So ended this great siege, the most memorable in the
annals of the British isles. It had lasted 105 days. The
garrison had been reduced from about 7,000 effective men to
about 3,000. The loss of the besiegers cannot be precisely
ascertained. Walker estimated it at 8,000 men."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 12.
ALSO in:
W. H. Torriano,
William the Third,
chapter 21.
See, also, IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.
----------LONDONDERRY: End--------
LONE JACK, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).
LONE STAR, Order of the.
See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.
LONE STAR FLAG.
LONE STAR STATE.
On assuming independence, in 1836, the republic of Texas
adopted a flag bearing a single star, which was known as 'the
flag of the lone Star.' With reference to this emblem, Texas
is often called the Lone Star State.
----------LONG ISLAND: Start--------
LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1614.
Explored by the Dutch.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.
LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1624.
Settlement of Brooklyn.
See BROOKLYN.
LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1634.
Embraced in the Palatine grant of New Albion.
See NEW ALBION.
LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1650.
Division between the Dutch of New Netherland and the English
of Connecticut.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.
LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1664.
Title acquired for the Duke of York.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1673.
The Dutch reconquest.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1674.
Annexed to New York.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1675.
LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1776.
The defeat of the American army by Lord Howe.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).
----------LONG ISLAND: End--------
LONG KNIVES, The.
See YANKEE.
LONG PARLIAMENT.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.
LONG WALLS OF ATHENS.
The walls which the Athenians built, B. C. 457, one, four
miles long, to the harbor of Phalerum, and others, four and
one half miles long, to the Piræus, to protect the
communication of their city with its port, were called the
Long Walls. The same name had been previously given to the
walls built by the Athenians to protect the communication of
Megara, then their ally, with its port of Nisæa; and Corinth
had, also, its Long Walls, uniting it with the port Lechæum.
The Long Walls of Athens were destroyed on the surrender of
the city, at the termination of the Peloponnesian War, B. C.
404, and rebuilt, B. C. 393, by Conon, with Persian help.
See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.
LONGJUMEAU, Peace of (1568).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.
LONGSTREET, General James.
Siege of Knoxville.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).
LONGUEVILLE,
The Duchess de, and the Fronde.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1649, to 1651-1653.
LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN, its position, and the battle on it.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE);
and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
LOOM, Cartwright's invention of the power.
See COTTON MANUFACTURE.
LOPEZ, The Tyranny of.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.
LOPEZ FILIBUSTERING EXPEDITION (1851).
See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.
LORD.
"Every Teutonic King or other leader was surrounded by a band
of chosen warriors, personally attached to him of their own
free choice [see COMITATUS]. … The followers served their
chief in peace and in war; they fought for him to the death,
and rescued or avenged his life with their own. In return,
they shared whatever gifts or honours the chief could
distribute among them; and in our tongue at least it was his
character of dispenser of gifts which gave the chief his
official title. He was the 'Hlaford,' the 'Loaf-giver,' a name
which, through a series of softenings and contractions, and
with a complete forgetfulness of its primitive meaning, has
settled down into the modern form of Lord."
E. A. Freeman,
History Norman Conquests,
chapter 3, section 2 (volume 1).
On the Latin equivalent, 'Dominus,'
See IMPERATOR: FINAL SIGNIFICATION.
LORD CHANCELLOR, The.
See CHANCELLOR.
LORD DUNMORE'S WAR.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.
LORDS, British House of.
"The ancient National Assembly [of England] gradually ceased
to be anything more than an assembly of the 'greater barons,'
and ultimately developed into a hereditary House of Lords, the
Upper House of the National Parliament. The hereditary
character of the House of Lords—now long regarded as fixed
and fundamental—accrued slowly and undesignedly, as a
consequence of the hereditary descent of the baronial fiefs,
practically inalienable, in right of which summonses to the
national council were issued."
T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
chapter 7.
"The English aristocracy is a typical example of the way in
which a close corporation dies out. Its members are almost
always wealthy in the first instance, and their estates have
been constantly added to by favour from the Crown, by
something like the monopoly of the best Government
appointments, and by marriages with wealthy heiresses. They
are able to command the field sports and open-air life that
conduce to health, and the medical advice that combats
disease. Nevertheless, they die out so rapidly that only five
families out of nearly six hundred go back without a break,
and in the male line, to the fifteenth century. … 155 peers
were summoned to the first Parliament of James II. In 1825,
only 140 years later, only forty-eight of these nobles were
represented by lineal descendants in the male line. The family
has in several instances been continued by collaterals begging
the peerage, which they could not have claimed at law, and in
this way the change may seem less than it has really been; but
the broad result appears to be that left to itself from 1688,
with new creations absolutely forbidden, the House of Lords
would by this time have been practically extinguished.
{2041}
Of Charles II. 's six bastards, who were made dukes, only
three have perpetuated the race. Three peerages have been lost
to the Howard family, three to the Greys, two to the
Mordaunts, two to the Hydes, two to the Gerards, and two to
the Lucases. … It is in the lower strata of society that we
have to seck for the springs of national life."
C. H. Pearson,
National Life and Character,
pages 70-73.
"The British peerage is something unique in the world. In
England there is, strictly speaking, no nobility. This saying
may indeed sound like a paradox. The English nobility, the
British aristocracy, are phrases which are in everybody's
mouth. Yet, in strictness, there is no such thing as an
aristocracy or a nobility in England. There is undoubtedly an
aristocratic element in the English constitution; the House of
Lords is that aristocratic element. And there have been times
in English history when there has been a strong tendency to
aristocracy, when the lords have been stronger than either the
king or the people. … But a real aristocracy, like that of
Venice, an aristocracy not only stronger than either king or
people, but which had driven out both king and people, an
aristocracy from whose ranks no man can come down and into
whose ranks no man can rise save by the act of the privileged
body itself,—such an aristocracy as this England has never
seen. Nor has England ever seen a nobility in the true sense,
the sense which the word bears in every continental land, a
body into which men may be raised by the king, but from which
no man may come down, a body which hands on to all its
members, to the latest generations, some kind of privilege or
distinction, whether its privileges consist in substantial
political power, or in bare titles and precedence. In England
there is no nobility. The so-called noble family is not noble
in the continental sense; privilege does not go on from
generation to generation; titles and precedence are lost in
the second or third generation; substantial privilege exists
in only one member of the family at a time. The powers and
privileges of the peer himself are many; but they belong to
himself only; his children are legally commoners; his
grandchildren are in most cases undistinguishable from other
commoners. … A certain great position in the state is
hereditary; but nobility in the strict sense there is none.
The actual holder of the peerage has, as it were, drawn to his
own person the whole nobility of the family."
E. A. Freeman,
Practical Bearings of European History
(Lectures to American Audiences),
pages 305-307.
"At the end of 1892 there were 545 members of the House of
Lords, made up thus:
Peers, 469;
Lords of Appeal and Ex-Lords of Appeal, 5;
Representative Peers of Scotland, 16;
Representative Peers of Ireland, 28;
Lords Spiritual, 27.
The Lords of Appeal are lawyers of great distinction who are
appointed by the Queen and hold office during good behavior.
Their number is always about the same. Their work is mainly
judicial; but these Law Lords, as they are called, also speak
and vote in the deliberative and legislative proceedings of
the Upper House. The position of a Lord of Appeal differs from
that of an ordinary peer in that his office is not hereditary.
As regards the representative peers, those from Ireland, who
number 28, are elected for life; those from Scotland, who
number 16, are elected at a meeting of Scotch peers, held in
Holyrood Palace, Edinburgh, after each General Election, and
hold office during the lifetime of a Parliament. The Lords
Spiritual include (1) the Archbishop of Canterbury, the
Archbishop of York, the Bishops of London, Durham, and
Winchester; and (2) twenty-two out of the other twenty-nine
bishops of the Church of England. The prelates whose titles
have been given take their seats in the House immediately on
appointment; the other bishops take their seats by order of
seniority of consecration. The prelates who are without seats
in the House of Lords are known as junior bishops. The Bishop
of Sodor and Man has a seat in the House of Lords, but no
vote."
E. Porritt,
The Englishman at Home,
chapter 6.
For an account of the transient abolition of the House of
Lords in 1649,
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).
See, also, PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH;
and ESTATES, THE THREE.
LORDS OF ARTICLES.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1326-1603; and 1688-1690.
LORDS OF THE CONGREGATION.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557; and 1558-1560.
LORDS OF THE ISLES.
See HEBRIDES: A. D. 1346-1504;
and HARLAW, BATTLE OF.
LORDS SPIRITUAL AND TEMPORAL, The.
See ESTATES, THE THREE.
LORENZO DE' MEDICI (called The Magnificent),
The rule of.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.
----------LORRAINE: Start--------
LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.
Formation and dissolution of the kingdom.
In the division of the empire of Charlemagne among his three
grandsons, made by the treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, the elder,
Lothaire, bearing the title of Emperor, received the kingdom
of Italy, and, with it, another kingdom, named, after himself,
Lotharingia—afterwards called Lorraine. This latter was so
formed as to be an extension northwestwardly of his Italian
kingdom, and to stretch in a long belt between the Germanic
dominion of his brother Ludwig and the Francia Nova, or
France, of his brother Charles. It extended "from the mouth of
the Rhine to Provence, bounded by that river on one frontier,
by France on the other."
H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 1, part 1, note.
"Between these two states [of the Eastern and Western, or
Germanic and Gallic Franks] the policy of the ninth century
instinctively put a barrier, The Emperor Lothar, besides
Italy, kept a long narrow strip of territory between the
dominions of his Eastern and Western brothers. … This land,
having … been the dominion of two Lothars, took the name of
Lotharingia, Lothringen, or Lorraine, a name which part of it
has kept to this day. This land, sometimes attached to the
Eastern kingdom, sometimes to the Western, sometimes divided
between the two, sometimes separated from both, always kept
its character of a border-land. … Lotharingia took in the
two duchies of the Ripuarian Lotharingia and Lotharingia on
the Mosel. The former contains a large part of the modern
Belgium and the neighboring lands on the Rhine, including the
royal city of Aachen. Lotharingia on the Mosel answers roughly
to the later duchy of that name, though its extent to the East
is considerably larger."
E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 6, section 1.
{2042}
"Upon the death of the Emperor Lothair [A. D. 855] his share
of the Carlovingian inheritance, the Kingdom acquired by
disobedience, violence, deceit and fraud, sustained further
partitions: Lothair's piece of the rent garment was clutched
and tattered again and again by his nearest of kin, his three
sons, and their two uncles, and the sons and the sons' sons of
his sons and uncles, till the lineage ended. … The Emperor
Lothair had directed and confirmed the partition of his third
of the Carlovingian Empire, appointed to him by the treaty of
Verdun." His namesake, his second son, Lothair II., received
the kingdom called "Lotharingia, Lothierregne, or Lorraine,"
and which is defined in the terms of modern geography as
follows: "The thirteen Cantons of Switzerland with their
allies and tributaries, East or Free Friesland, Oldenburgh,
the whole of the United Netherlands, all other territories
included in the Archbishopric of Utrecht, the Trois Evéchés,
Metz, Toul and Verdun, the electorates of Trèves and of
Cologne, the Palatine Bishopric of Liège, Alsace and
Franche-Comté, Hainault and the Cambresis, Brabant (known in
intermediate stages as Basse-Lorraine, or the Duchy of
Lohier), Namur, Juliers and Cleves, Luxemburgh and Limburg,
the Duchy of Bar and the Duchy which retained the name of
Lorraine, the only memorial of the antient and dissolved
kingdom. … After King Lothair's death [A. D. 869] nine
family competitors successively came into the field for that
much-coveted Lotharingia." Charles the Bald, one of the uncles
of the deceased king,—he who held the Neustrian or French
dominion,—took possession and got himself crowned king of
Lotharingia. But the rival uncle, Louis the German, soon
forced him (A. D. 870) to a division of the spoils. "The lot
of Charles consisted of Burgundy and Provence, and most of
those Lotharingian dominions where the French or Walloon
tongue was and yet is spoken; … he also took some purely
Belgic territories, especially that very important district
successively known as Basse-Lorraine, the Duchy of Lohier, and
Brabant. Modern history is dawning fast upon us.
Louis-le-Germanique received Aix-la-Chapelle, Cologne, Treves,
Utrecht, Strasburgh, Metz,—indeed nearly all the territories
of the Belgic and German tongues."
Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
volume 1, pages 361-370.
See, also, VERDUN, TREATY OF.
LORRAINE: A. D. 911-980.
The dukedom established.
The definite separation of the East Franks, who ultimately
constituted the Germany of modern history, from the West or
Neustrian Franks, out of whose political organization sprang
the kingdom of France, took place in 911, when the Franconian
duke Conrad was elected king by the Germanic nations, and the
rule of the Carolingian princes was ended for them. In this
proceeding Lotharingia, or Lorraine, refused to concur.
"Nobles and people held to the old imperial dynasty. …
Opinions, customs, traditions, still rendered the
Lotharingians mainly members of Romanized Gaul. They severed
themselves from the Germans beyond the Rhine, separated by
influences more powerful than the stream." The Lotharingians,
accordingly, repudiated the sovereignty of Conrad and placed
themselves under the rule of Charles the Simple, the
Carolingian king then struggling to maintain his slender
throne at Laon. "Twice did King Conrad attempt to win
Lotharingia and reunite the Rhine-kingdom to the German realm:
he succeeded in obtaining Alsace, but the remainder was
resolutely retained by Charles." In 916 this remainder was
constituted a duchy, by Charles, and conferred upon Gilbert,
son of Rainier, Count of Hainault, who had been the leader of
the movement against Conrad and the Germanic nations. A little
later, when the Carolingian dynasty was near its end, Henry
the Fowler and his son Otho, the great German king who revived
the empire, recovered the suzerainty of Lorraine, and Otho
gave it to his brother Bruno, Archbishop of Cologne. Under
Bruno it was divided into two parts, Upper and Lower Lorraine.
Lower Lorraine was subsequently conferred by Otho II. upon his
cousin Charles, brother to Lothaire, the last of the French
Carolingian kings. "The nature and extent of this same grant
has been the subject of elaborate critical enquiry; but, for
our purposes, it is sufficient to know, that Charles is
accepted by all the historical disputants as first amongst the
hereditary Dukes of the 'Basse-Lorraine'; and, having received
investiture, he became a vassal of the Emperor." In 980, this
disposition of Lower Lorraine was ratified by Lothaire, the
French king, who, "abandoning all his rights and pretensions
over Lorraine, openly and solemnly renounced the dominions,
and granted the same to be held without let or interference
from the French, and be subjected for ever to the German
Empire."
Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, part 2, chapter 1
and chapter 4, part 2.
"Lotharingia retained its Carolingian princes, but it retained
them only by definitively becoming a fief of the Teutonic
Kingdom. Charles died in prison, but his children continued to
reign in Lotharingia as vassals of the Empire. Lotharingia was
thus wholly lost to France; that portion of it which was
retained by the descendants of Charles in the female line
still preserves its freedom as part of the independent Kingdom
of Belgium."
E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 4, section 4 (volume 1).
LORRAINE: A. D. 1430.
Acquisition of the duchy by René, Duke of Anjou
and Count of Provence, afterwards King of Naples.
Union with Bar.
See ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.
LORRAINE: A. D. 1476.
Short-lived conquest by Charles the Bold.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477.
LORRAINE: A. D. 1505-1559.
Rise of the Guises, a branch of the ducal house.
Cession to France of Les Trois Evéchés.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
LORRAINE: A. D. 1624-1663.
Quarrels and war of Duke Charles IV. with Richelieu and France.
Ruin and depopulation of the duchy.
Its possession by the French.
Early in Richelieu's administration of the French government,
the first steps were taken towards the union of Lorraine with
France. "Its situation, as well as its wealth and fertility,
made it an acquisition specially valuable to that kingdom. …
Lorraine had long been ruled by the present family of dukes,
and in its government more had remained of feudal usages than
in the monarchy that had grown up beside it. The character and
career of the members of the house of Guise had brought
Lorraine into very intimate connection with France, and the
closeness of its relations added danger to its position as an
independent state. Charles IV. became Duke of Lorraine in 1624
by virtue of the rights of his cousin and wife, the daughter of
the last duke. …
{2043}
He soon began to take part in the intrigues of the French
Court, and he enrolled himself among the lovers of Mme. de
Chevreuse and the enemies of Richelieu. … Richelieu had long
sought occasion for offence against the Duke Charles. The Duke
of Lorraine was bound to do honor to the French king for the
Duchy of Bar [which was a fief of the French crown, while
Lorraine was an imperial fief], a duty which was often
omitted, and the agents of Richelieu discovered that France
had ancient and valid claims to other parts of his territory.
His relations with France were rendered still more uncertain
by his own untrustworthy character. To tell the truth or to
keep his agreement were equally impossible for Duke Charles,
and he was dealing with a man with whom it was dangerous to
trifle. Gustavus Adolphus had invaded Germany, and the Duke of
Lorraine was eager in defending the cause of the Emperor. In
January, 1632, he was forced to make a peace with France, by
which he agreed to make no treaty with any other prince or
state without the knowledge and permission of the French king.
Charles paid no attention to this treaty, and for all these
causes in June, 1632, Louis [XIII.] invaded his dominions.
They lay open to the French army, and no efficient opposition
could be made. On June 26th Charles was forced to sign a
second treaty, by which he surrendered the city and county of
Clermont, and also yielded the possession for four years of
the citadels of Stenay and Jametz. … This treaty made little
change in the condition of affairs. Charles continued to act
in hostility to the Swedes, to assist Gaston [Duke of Orleans,
the rebellious and troublesome brother of Louis XIII., who had
married Margaret of Lorraine, the Duke's sister], and in every
way to violate the conditions of the treaty he had made. He
seethed resolved to complete his own ruin, and he did not have
to wait long for its accomplishment. In 1633 Louis a second
time invaded Lorraine, and the Swedes, in return for the
duke's hostility to them, also entered the province. Charles'
forces were scattered and he was helpless, but he was as false
as he was weak. He promised to surrender his sister Margaret,
and he allowed her to escape. He sent his brother to make a
treaty and then refused to ratify it. At last, he made the
most disadvantageous treaty that was possible, and surrendered
his capital, Nancy, the most strongly-fortified city of
Lorraine, into Louis' possession until all difficulties should
be settled between the king and the duke, which, as Richelieu
said, might take till eternity. In January, 1634, Charles
pursued his eccentric career by granting all his rights in the
duchy to his brother, the Cardinal of Lorraine. The new duke
also married a cousin in order to unite the rights of the two
branches. … Charles adopted the life of a wandering soldier
of fortune, which was most to his taste, and commanded the
imperial forces at the battle of Nordlingen. He soon assumed
again the rights which he had ceded, but his conduct rendered
them constantly less valuable. The following years were filled
with struggles with France, which resulted in her taking
possession of still more of Lorraine, until its duke was
entirely a fugitive. Such struggles brought upon its
inhabitants a condition of constantly increasing want and
misery. … It was ravaged by the hordes of the Duke of Weimar
and the Swedes [see GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639], and on every
side were pillage and burning and murders. Famine followed,
and the horrors perpetrated from it were said to be more than
could be described. Richelieu himself wrote that the
inhabitants of Lorraine were mostly dead, villages burned,
cities deserted, and a century would not entirely restore the
country. Vincent de Paul did much of his charitable work in
that unhappy province. … The duke at last, in 1641, came as
a suppliant to Richelieu to ask for his duchy, and it was
granted him, but on the condition that Stenay, Dun, Jametz,
and Clermont should be united to France, that Nancy should
remain in the king's possession until the peace, and that the
duke should assist France with his troops against all enemies
whenever required. … Charles was hardly back in his
dominions before he chose to regard the treaty he had made as
of no validity, and in July he violated it openly, and shortly
took refuge with the Spanish army. … Thereupon the French
again invaded Lorraine, and by October, 1641, practically the
whole province was in their hands. It so continued until
1663."
J. B. Perkins,
France under [Richelieu and] Mazarin,
chapter 5 (volume 1).
"The faithfulness with which he [the Duke of Lorraine] adhered
to his alliance with Austria, in spite of threatened losses,
formed in the end a strong bond of reciprocal attachment and
sympathy between the Hapsburgs and the Princes of Lorraine,
which, at a later day, became even firmer, and finally
culminated in the marriage of Stephen of Lorraine and Maria
Theresa."
A. Gindely,
History of the Thirty Years' War,
volume 2, chapter 6, section 3.
LORRAINE: A. D. 1648.
Desertion of the cause of the duke in the
Peace of Westphalia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
LORRAINE: A. D. 1659.
Restored to the duke with some shearing of territory.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
LORRAINE: A. D. 1679.
Restoration refused by the duke.
See NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.
LORRAINE: A. D. 1680.
Entire absorption of Les Trois Evêchés in France with
boundaries extended by the Chamber of Reannexation.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.
LORRAINE: A. D. 1697.
Restored to the duke by the Treaty of Ryswick.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
LORRAINE: A. D. 1735.
Ceded to France.
Reversion of Tuscany secured to the former duke.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.
LORRAINE: A. D, 1871.
One fifth ceded to the German empire by France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).
LORRAINE: A. D. 1871-1879.
Organization of the government of Alsace-Lorraine as a German
imperial province.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1879.
----------LORRAINE: End----------
LOSANTIVILLE.
See CINCINNATI: A. D. 1788.
LOSE-COAT FIELD, Battle of.
In 1470 an insurrection against the government of King Edward
IV. broke out in Lincolnshire, England under the lead of Sir
Robert Welles, who raised the Lancastrian standard of King
Henry. The insurgents were vigorously attacked by Edward, at a
place near Stamford, when the greater part of them "flung away
their coats and took to flight, leaving their leader a
prisoner in the hands of his enemies. The manner in which the
rebels were dispersed caused the action to be spoken of as the
battle of Lose-coat Field."
J. Gairdner,
Houses of Lancaster and York,
chapter 8.
The engagement is sometimes called the Battle of Stamford.
{2044}
LOST TEN TRIBES OF ISRAEL.
See JEWS: KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH;
also, SAMARIA.
LOTHAIRE,
King of France, A. D. 954-986.
Lothaire I., King of Italy and Rhineland, 817-855;
King of Lotharingia, and titular Emperor, 843-855.
Lothaire II.,
Emperor, 1133-1137;
King of Germany, 1125-1137.
LOTHARINGIA.
See LORRAINE.
LOTHIAN.
See SCOTLAND: 10-11TH CENTURIES.
LOUIS,
King of Portugal, A. D. 1861-1889.
Louis of Nassau, and the struggle in the Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566, to 1573-1574.
Louis I. (called The Pious),
Emperor of the West, A. D. 814-840;
King of Aquitaine, 781-814;
King of the Franks, 814-840.
Louis I. (called The Great),
King of Hungary, 1342-1382;
King of Poland, 1370-1382.
Louis I.,
King of Naples, 1382-1384;
Count of Provence and Duke of Anjou, 1339-1384.
Louis I., King of Sicily, 1342-1355.
Louis II. (called The Stammerer),
King of France, 877-879.
Louis II. (called The German),
King of the East Franks (Germany), 843-875.
Louis II.,
King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1516-1526.
Louis II.,
King of Naples, 1389-1399;
Duke of Anjou and Count of Provence, 1384-1417.
See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389, and 1386-1414.
Louis III.,
King of the Franks (Northern France), 879-882;
East Franks (Germany—in association with Carloman), 876-881.
Louis III. (called The Child),
King of the East Franks (Germany), 899-910.
Louis III., King of Provence, 1417-1434.
Louis III.,
Duke of Anjou, Count of Provence,
and titular King of Naples, 1417-1434.
Louis IV., King of France, 936-954.
Louis V. (of Bavaria),
Emperor, 1327-1347;
King of Germany (in rivalry with Frederick III.), 1313-1347;
King of Italy, 1327-1347.
Louis V., King of France, 986-987.
Louis VI. (called The Fat), King of France, 1108-1137.
Louis VII., King of France, 1137-1180.
Louis VIII., King of France, 1223-1226.
Louis IX. (called Saint Louis), King of France, 1226-1270.
Louis X. (called Le Hutin, or The Brawler),
King of France, 1314-1316;
King of Navarre, 1305-1316.
Louis XI., King of France, 1461-1483.
Louis XII., King of France, 1498-1515.
Louis XIII., King of France, 1610-1643… .
Louis XIV. (called "The Grand Monarch "),
King of France, 1643-1715.
Louis XV., King of France, 1715-1774.
Louis XVI., King of France, 1774-1793.
Louis XVII., nominal King of France, 1793-1796,
during the Revolution; died in prison, aged twelve years.
Louis XVIII., King of France; 1814-1824.
Louis Napoleon Bonaparte.
See NAPOLEON III.
Louis Philippe,
King of France (of the House of Orleans), 1830-1848.
LOUIS, Saint, Establishments of.
See WAGER OF BATTLE.
----------LOUISBOURG: Start--------
LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1720-1745.
The fortification of the Harbor.
See CAPE BRETON: A. D. 1720-1745.
LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1745.
Surrender to the New Englanders.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745.
LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1748.
Restoration to France.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.
LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1757.
English designs against, postponed.
See CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.
LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1758-1760.
Final capture and destruction of the place by the English.
See CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
----------LOUISBOURG: End--------
LOUISIANA:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY,
and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1629.
Mostly embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath, by
Charles I. of England.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1682.
Named and possession taken for the king of France, by La
Salle.
See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.
Iberville's colonization.
Separation in government from New France.
Crozat's monopoly.
The French territorial claim.
"The court of France had been engaged in wars and political
intrigues, and nothing toward colonizing Louisiana had been
effected since the disastrous expedition of La Salle. Twelve
years had elapsed, but his discoveries and his unfortunate
fate had not been forgotten. At length, in 1698, an expedition
for colonizing the region of the Lower Mississippi was set on
foot by the French king. It was placed under the command of M.
D'Iberville, who had been an experienced and distinguished
naval commander in the French wars of Canada, and a successful
agent in establishing colonies in Canada, Acadie and Cape
Breton. … With his little fleet of two frigates, rating 30
guns each, and two smaller vessels, bearing a company of
marines and 200 colonists, including a few women and children,
he prepared to set sail from France for the mouth of the
Mississippi. The colonists were mostly soldiers who had served
in the armies of France and had received an honorable
discharge. They were well supplied with provisions and
implements requisite for opening settlements in the
wilderness. It was on the 24th day of September, 1698, that
this colony sailed from Rochelle." On the 2d of the following
March, after considerable exploration of the coast, west from
the Spanish settlement at Pensacola, Iberville found the mouth
of the Mississippi, being confirmed in the identification of
it by discovery of a letter, in the hands of the Indians,
which Tonti had written to La Salle thirteen years before.
"Soon afterward, Iberville selected a site and began to erect
a fort upon the northeast shore of the Bay of Biloxi, about
fifteen miles north of Ship Island. Here, upon a sandy shore,
and under a burning sun, upon a pine barren, he settled his
colony, about 80 miles northeast from the present city of New
Orleans. … Having thus located his colony, and protected
them [by a fort] from the danger of Indian treachery and
hostility, he made other provision for their comfort and
security, and then set sail for France, leaving his two
brothers, Sauvolle and Bienville, as his lieutenants." The
following September an English corvette appeared in the river,
intending to explore it, but was warned off by the French, and
retired. During the summer of 1699 the colonists suffered
terribly from the maladies of the region, and M. Sauvolle,
with many others, died.
{2045}
"Early in December following D'Iberville returned with an
additional colony and a detachment of troops, in company with
several vessels of war. Up to this time, the principal
settlements had been at Ship Island and on the Bay of Biloxi;
others had been begun at the Bay of St. Louis and on the Bay
of Mobile. These were made as a matter of convenience, to hold
and occupy the country; for his principal object was to
colonize the banks of the Mississippi itself." Iberville now
built a fort and located a small colony at a point about 54
miles above the mouth of the river, and about 38 miles below
the present city of New Orleans. The next year, having been
joined by the veteran De Tonti with a party of French
Canadians from the Illinois, Iberville ascended the river
nearly 400 miles, formed a friendly alliance with the Natchez
tribe of Indians, and selected for a future settlement the
site of the present city of Natchez. "In the spring of 1702
war had been declared by England against France and Spain, and
by order of the King of France the headquarters of the
commandant were removed to the western bank of the Mobile
River. This was the first European settlement within the
present State of Alabama. The Spanish settlement at Pensacola
was not remote; but as England was now the common enemy, the
French and Spanish commandants arranged their boundary between
Mobile and Pensacola Bays to be the Perdido River. … The
whole colony of Southern Louisiana as yet did not number 30
families besides soldiers. Bilious fevers had cut off many of
the first emigrants, and famine and Indian hostility now
threatened the remainder." Two years later, Iberville was
broken in health by an attack of yellow fever and retired to
France. After six further years of hardship and suffering, the
colony, in 1710, still "presented a population of only 380
souls, distributed into five settlements, remote from each
other. These were on Ship Island, Cat Island, at Biloxi,
Mobile, and on the Mississippi. … Heretofore the settlements
of Louisiana had been a dependence on New France, or Canada,
although separated by a wilderness of 2,000 miles in extent.
Now it was to be made an independent government, responsible
only to the crown, and comprising also the Illinois country

under its jurisdiction. The government of Louisiana was
accordingly placed [1711] in the hands of a governor-general.
The headquarters, or seat of the colonial government, was
established at Mobile, and a new fort was erected upon the
site of the present city of Mobile. … In France it was still
believed that Louisiana presented a rich field for enterprise
and speculation. The court, therefore, determined to place the
resources of the province under the influence of individual
enterprise. For this purpose, a grant of exclusive privileges,
in all the commerce of the province, for a term of 15 years,
was made to Anthony Crozat, a rich and influential merchant of
France. His charter was dated September 26th, 1712. At this
time the limits of Louisiana, as claimed by France, were very
extensive. As specified in the charter of Crozat, it was
'bounded by New Mexico on the west, by the English lands of
Carolina on the east, including all the establishments, ports,
havens, rivers, and principally the port and haven of the Isle
of Dauphin, heretofore called Massacre; the River St. Louis,
heretofore called Mississippi, from the edge of the sea as far
as the Illinois together with the River St. Philip, heretofore
called Missouri, the River St. Jerome, heretofore called
Wabash, with all the lands, lakes, and rivers mediately or
immediately flowing into any part of the River St. Louis or
Mississippi.' Thus Louisiana, as claimed by France at that
early period, embraced all the immense regions of the United
States from the Alleghany Mountains on the east to the Rocky
Mountains on the west, and northward to the great lakes of
Canada."
J. W. Monette,
History of the Discovery and Settlement of the
Valley of the Mississippi,
book 2, chapter 5 (volume 1).
Louisiana: A. D. 1717-1718.
Crozat's failure and John Law's Mississippi Bubble.
The founding of New Orleans.
"Crozat's failure was, in the nature of things, foreordained.
His scheme, indeed, proved a stumbling-block to the colony and
a loss to himself. In five years (1717) he was glad to
surrender his monopoly to the crown. From its ashes sprung the
gigantic Mississippi Scheme of John Law, to whom all
Louisiana, now including the Illinois country, was granted for
a term of years. Compared with this prodigality Crozat's
concession was but a plaything. It not only gave Law's Company
proprietary rights to the soil, but power was conferred to
administer justice, make peace or war with the natives, build
forts, levy troops and with consent of the crown to appoint
such military governors as it should think fitting. These
extraordinary privileges were put in force by a royal edict,
dated in September, 1717. The new company [called the Western
Company] granted lands along the river to individuals or
associated persons, who were sometimes actual emigrants,
sometimes great personages who sent out colonists at their own
cost, or again the company itself undertook the building up of
plantations on lands reserved by it for the purpose. One
colony of Alsatians was sent out by Law to begin a plantation
on the Arkansas. Others, more or less flourishing, were
located at the mouth of the Yazoo, Natchez and Baton Rouge.
All were agricultural plantations, though in most cases the
plantations themselves consisted of a few poor huts covered
with a thatch of palm-leaves. The earliest forts were usually
a square earthwork, strengthened with palisades about the
parapet. The company's agricultural system was founded upon
African slave labor. Slaves were brought from St. Domingo or
other of the West India islands. By some their employment was
viewed with alarm, because it was thought the blacks would
soon outnumber the whites, and might some day rise and
overpower them; but we find only the feeblest protest entered
against the moral wrong of slavery in any record of the time.
Negroes could work in the fields, under the burning sun, when
the whites could not. Their labor cost no more than their
maintenance. The planters easily adopted what, indeed, already
existed among their neighbors. Self-interest stilled
conscience. The new company wisely appointed Bienville
governor. Three ships brought munitions, troops, and stores of
every sort from France, with which to put new life into the
expiring colony. It was at this time (February, 1718) that
Bienville began the foundation of the destined metropolis of
Louisiana. The spot chosen by him was clearly but a fragment
of the delta which the river had been for ages silently
building of its own mud and driftwood.
{2046}
It had literally risen from the sea. Elevated only a few feet
above sea-level, threatened with frequent inundation, and in
its primitive estate a cypress swamp, it seemed little suited
for the abode of men, yet time has confirmed the wisdom of the
choice. Here, then, a hundred miles from the Gulf, on the
alluvial banks of the great river, twenty-five convicts and as
many carpenters were set to work clearing the ground and
building the humble log cabins, which were to constitute the
capital, in its infancy. The settlement was named New Orleans,
in honor of the Regent, Orleans, who ruled France during the
minority of Louis XV.
S. A. Drake,
The Making of the Great West,
pages 126-128.
ALSO IN:
A. McF. Davis,
Canada and Louisiana
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 5, chapter 1).
A. Thiers,
The Mississippi Bubble,
chapters 3-8.
C. Mackay,
Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions,
volume 1, chapter 1.
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720.
LOUISIANA: A. D 1719-1750.
Surrendered to the Crown.
Massacre of French by the Natchez,
and destruction of that tribe.
Unsuccessful war with the Chickasaws.
"The same prodigality and folly which prevailed in France
during the government of John Law, over credit and commerce,
found their way to his western possessions; and though the
colony then planted survived, and the city then founded became
in time what had been hoped,—it was long before the influence
of the gambling mania of 1718-19-20 passed a way. Indeed the
returns from Louisiana never repaid the cost and trouble of
protecting it, and, in 1732, the Company asked leave to
surrender their privileges to the crown, a favor which was
granted them. But though the Company of the West did little
for the enduring welfare of the Mississippi valley, it did
something; the cultivation of tobacco, indigo, rice, and silk,
was introduced, the lead mines of Missouri were opened, though
at vast expense and in hope of finding silver; and, in
Illinois, the culture of wheat began to assume some degree of
stability and of importance. In the neighborhood of the river
Kaskaskia, Charlevoix found three villages, and about Fort
Chartres, the head quarters of the Company in that region, the
French were rapidly settling. All the time, however, during
which the great monopoly lasted, was, in Louisiana, a time of
contest and trouble. The English, who, from an early period,
had opened commercial relations with the Chickasaws, through
them constantly interfered with the trade of the Mississippi.
Along the coast, from Pensacola to the Rio del Norte, Spain
disputed the claims of her northern neighbor: and at length
the war of the Natchez struck terror into the hearts of both
white and red men. Amid that nation … D'Iberville had marked
out Fort Rosalie [on the site of the present city of Natchez],
in 1700, and fourteen years later its erection had been
commenced. The French, placed in the midst of the natives, and
deeming them worthy only of contempt, increased their demands
and injuries until they required even the abandonment of the
chief town of the Natchez, that the intruders might use its
site for a plantation. The inimical Chickasaws heard the
murmurs of their wronged brethren, and breathed into their
ears counsels of vengeance; the sufferers determined on the
extermination of their tyrants. On the 28th of November, 1729,
every Frenchman in that colony died by the hands of the
natives, with the exception of two mechanics: the women and
children were spared. It was a fearful revenge, and fearfully
did the avengers suffer for their murders. Two months passed
by, and the French and Choctaws in one day took 60 of their
scalps; in three months they were driven from their country
and scattered among the neighboring tribes; and within two
years the remnants of the nation, chiefs and people, were sent
to St. Domingo and sold into slavery. So perished this ancient
and peculiar race, in the same year in which the Company of
the West yielded its grants into the royal hands. When
Louisiana came again into the charge of the government of
France, it was determined, as a first step, to strike terror
into the Chickasaws, who, devoted to the English, constantly
interfered with the trade on the Mississippi. For this purpose
the forces of New France, from New Orleans to Detroit, were
ordered to meet in the country of the inimical Indians, upon
the 10th of May, 1736, to strike a blow which should be
final." D'Artaguette, governor of Illinois, was promptly at
the rendezvous, with a large force of Indians, and a small
body of French, but Bienville, from the southern province,
proved dilatory. After waiting ten days, D'Artaguette attacked
the Chickasaws, carried two of their defenses, but fell and
was taken prisoner in the assault of a third; whereupon his
Indian allies fled. Bienville, coming up five days afterwards,
was repulsed in his turn and retreated, leaving D'Artaguette
and his captive companions to a fearful fate. "Three years
more passed away, and again a French army of nearly 4,000
white, red and black men, was gathered upon the banks of the
Mississippi, to chastise the Chickasaws. From the summer of
1739 to the spring of 1740, this body of men sickened and
wasted at Fort Assumption, upon the site of Memphis. In March
of the last named year, without a blow struck, peace was
concluded, and the province of Louisiana once more sunk into
inactivity. Of the ten years which followed we know but little
that is interesting."
J. H. Perkins,
Annals of the West,
pages 61-63.
ALSO IN:
M. Dumont,
Historical Memoirs
(French's Historical Collections of Louisiana, part 5).
C. Gayarre,
Louisiana; its Colonial History and Romance,
2d series, lectures 5-7.
S. G. Drake,
Aboriginal Races of North America,
book 4, chapter 5.
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1728.
The Casket Girls.
Wives for the colonists.
"In the beginning of 1728 there came a vessel of the company
with a considerable number of young girls, who had not been
taken, like their predecessors, from houses of correction. The
company had given to each of them a casket containing some
articles of dress. From that circumstance they became known in
the colony under the nickname of the 'filles à la cassette',
or 'the casket girls.' … Subsequently, it became a matter of
importance in the colony to derive one's origin from the
casket girls, rather than from the correction girls."
C. Gayarre,
Louisiana; its Colonial History and Romance,
page 396.
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1755.
Settlement of exiled Acadians.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1763.
East of the Mississippi, except New Orleans, ceded to
Great Britain, and west of the Mississippi, with New Orleans,
to Spain.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR.
{2047}
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1766-1768.
Spanish occupation and the revolt against it.
The short-lived republic of New Orleans.
"Spain accepted Louisiana [west of the Mississippi, with New
Orleans] with reluctance, for she lost France as her bulwark,
and, to keep the territory from England, assumed new expenses
and dangers. Its inhabitants loved the land of their ancestry;
by every law of nature and human freedom, they had the right
to protest against the transfer of their allegiance." Their
protests were unavailing, however, and their appeals met the
response: "France cannot bear the charge of supporting the
colony's precarious existence." In March, 1766, Antonio de
Ulloa arrived at New Orleans from Havana, to take possession
for the Spanish king. "Ulloa landed with civil officers, three
capuchin monks, and 80 soldiers. His reception was cold and
gloomy. He brought no orders to redeem the seven million
livres of French paper money, which weighed down a colony of
less than 6,000 white men. The French garrison of 300 refused
to enter the Spanish service, the people to give up their
nationality, and Ulloa was obliged to administer the
government under the French flag by the old French officers,
at the cost of Spain. In May of the same year, the Spanish
restrictive system was applied to Louisiana; in September, an
ordinance compelled French vessels having special permits to
accept the paper currency in pay for their cargoes, at an
arbitrary tariff of prices. … The ordinance was suspended,
but not till the alarm had destroyed all commerce. Ulloa
retired from New Orleans to the Balise. Only there, and
opposite Natchez, and at the river Iberville, was Spanish
jurisdiction directly exercised. This state of things
continued for a little more than two years. But the arbitrary
and passionate conduct of Ulloa, the depreciation of the
currency with the prospect of its becoming an almost total
loss, the disputes respecting the expenses incurred since the
session of 1762, the interruption of commerce, a captious
ordinance which made a private monopoly of the traffic with
the Indians, uncertainty of jurisdiction and allegiance,
agitated the colony from one end to the other. It was proposed
to make of New Orleans a republic, like Amsterdam or Venice,
with a legislative body of 40 men, and a single executive. The
people of the country parishes crowded in a mass into the
city, joined those of New Orleans, and formed a numerous
assembly, in which Lafrénière, John Milhet, Joseph Milhet, and
the lawyer Doucet were conspicuous. … On the 25th of
October, 1768, they adopted an address to the superior
council, written by Lafrénière and Caresse, rehearsing their
griefs; and, in their petition of rights, they claimed freedom
of commerce with the ports of France and America, and the
expulsion of Ulloa from the colony. The address, signed by 500
or 600 persons, was adopted the next day by the council … ;
when the French flag was displayed on the public square,
children and women ran up to kiss its folds, and it was raised
by 900 men, amid shouts of 'Long live the king of France! we
will have no king but him.' Ulloa retreated to Havana, and
sent his representations to Spain. The inhabitants elected
their own treasurer and syndics, sent envoys to Paris, … and
memorialized the French monarch to stand as intercessor
between them and the Catholic king, offering no alternative
but to be a colony of France or a free commonwealth."
G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last revision), volume 3, pages 316-318.
ALSO IN:
M. Thompson,
Story of Louisiana,
chapter 4.
C. Gayarré,
History of Louisiana: French Domination,
volume 2, lecture 3-6.
LOUISIANA: A. D., 1769.
Spanish authority established by "Cruel O'Reilly."
"It was the fate of the Creoles—possibly a climatic
result—to be slack-handed and dilatory. Month after month
followed the October uprising without one of those incidents
that would have succeeded in the history of an earnest people.
In March, 1769, Foucault [French intendant] covertly deserted
his associates, and denounced them, by letter, to the French
cabinet. In April the Spanish frigate sailed from New Orleans.
Three intrepid men (Loyola, Gayarre, and Navarro), the
governmental staff which Ulloa had left in the province, still
remained, unmolested. Not a fort was taken, though it is
probable not one could have withstood assault. Not a spade was
struck into the ground, or an obstruction planted, at any
strategic point, throughout that whole 'Creole' spring time
which stretches in its exuberant perfection from January to
June. … One morning toward the end of July, 1769, the people
of New Orleans were brought suddenly to their feet by the news
that the Spaniards were at the mouth of the river in
overwhelming force. There was no longer any room to postpone
choice of action. Marquis, the Swiss captain, with a white
cockade in his hat (he had been the leading advocate for a
republic), and Petit, with a pistol in either hand, came out
upon the ragged, sunburnt grass of the Place d'Armes and
called upon the people to defend their liberties. About 100
men joined them; but the town was struck motionless with
dismay; the few who had gathered soon disappeared, and by the
next day the resolution of the leaders was distinctly taken,
to submit. But no one fled. … Lafrénière, Marquis, and
Milhet descended the river, appeared before the commander of
the Spaniards, and by the mouth of Lafrénière in a submissive
but brave and manly address presented the homage of the
people. The captain-general in his reply let fall the word
seditious. Marquis boldly but respectfully objected. He was
answered with gracious dignity and the assurance of ultimate
justice, and the insurgent leaders returned to New Orleans and
to their homes. The Spanish fleet numbered 24 sail. For more
than three weeks it slowly pushed its way around the bends of
the Mississippi, and on the 18th of August it finally furled
its canvas before the town. Aubry [commanding the small force
of French soldiers which had remained in the colony under
Spanish pay] drew up his French troops with the colonial
militia at the bottom of the Place d'Armes, a gun was fired
from the flagship of the fleet, and Don Alexandro O'Reilly,
accompanied by 2,600 chosen Spanish troops, and with 50 pieces
of artillery, landed in unprecedented pomp, and took formal
possession of the province. On the 21st, twelve of the
principal insurrectionists were arrested. … Villeré [a
planter, of prominence] either 'died raving mad on the day of
his arrest,' as stated in the Spanish official report, or met
his end in the act of resisting the guard on board the frigate
where he had been placed in confinement. Lafrénière [former
attorney-general and leader of the revolt], Noyan ex-captain of cavalry], Caresse Joseph Milhet {2048}
The supplications both of colonists and Spanish officials
saved them only from the gallows, and they fell before the
fire of a file of Spanish grenadiers." The remaining prisoners
were sent to Havana and kept in confinement for a year.
"'Cruel O'Reilly'—the captain-general was justly named. …
O'Reilly had come to set up a government, but not to remain
and govern. On organizing the cabildo body—'like a crane, all feathers,' 'which, for the third part
of a century, ruled the pettier destinies of the Louisiana
Creoles '], he announced the appointment of Don Louis de
Unzaga, colonel of the regiment of Havana, as governor of the
province, and yielded him the chair. But under his own higher
commission of captain-general he continued for a time in
control. He established in force the laws of Castile and the
Indies and the use of the Spanish tongue in the courts and the
public offices. … Spanish rule in Louisiana was better, at
least, than French, which, it is true, scarcely deserved the
name of government. As to the laws themselves, it is worthy of
notice that Louisiana 'is at this time the only State, of the
vast territories acquired from France, Spain, and Mexico, in
which the civil law has been retained, and forms a large
portion of its jurisprudence.' On the 29th of October, 1770,
O'Reilly sailed from New Orleans with most of his troops,
leaving the Spanish power entirely and peacefully established.
The force left by him in the colony amounted to 1,200 men. He
had dealt a sudden and terrible blow; but he had followed it
only with velvet strokes."
G. W. Cable,
The Creoles of Louisiana,
chapter 10-11.
ALSO IN:
G. E. Waring, Jr., and G. W. Cable,
History and Present Condition of New Orleans
(United States Tenth Census, volume 19).
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1779-1781.
Spanish reconquest of West Florida.
See FLORIDA: A. D.1779-1781.
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.
The question of the
Navigation of the Mississippi, in dispute between
Spain and the United States.
Discontent of settlers in Kentucky and Tennessee.
Wilkinson's intrigues.
"Settlers in considerable numbers had crossed the mountains
into Kentucky and Tennessee while the war of Independence was
in progress. … At once it became a question of vital
importance how these people were to find avenues of commerce
with the outer world. … Immigration to the interior must
cross the mountains; but the natural highway for commerce was
the Mississippi River. If the use of this river were left
free, nothing better could be desired. Unfortunately it was
not free. The east bank of the river, as far south as the
north boundary of Florida [which included some part of the
present states of Alabama and Mississippi, but with the
northern boundary in dispute—see FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787],
was the property of the United States, but the west bank,
together with the island of Orleans, was held by Spain. That
power, while conceding to the people of the United States the
free navigation of the Mississippi as far down as the American
ownership of the left bank extended, claimed exclusive
jurisdiction below that line, and proposed to exact customs
duties from such American commerce as should pass in or out of
the mouth of the river. This pretension if yielded to would
place all that commerce at the mercy of Spain, and render not
merely the navigation of the river of little value, but the
very land from which the commerce sprung. It was inconceivable
that such pretensions should be tolerated if successful
resistance were possible, but the settlers were able to combat
it on two grounds, either of which seemed, according to
recognized rules of international law, conclusive. First, As
citizens of the country owning one of the banks on the upper
portion of the stream, they claimed the free navigation to the
sea with the privilege of a landing place at its mouth as a
natural right; and they were able to fortify this claim—if it
needed support—with the opinions of publicists of
acknowledged authority. Second, They claimed under the treaty
of 1763 between Great Britain and France, whereby the latter,
then the owner of Louisiana, had conceded to the former the
free navigation of the Mississippi in its whole breadth and
length, with passage in and out of its mouth, subject to the
payment of no duty whatsoever. … Thus both in natural right
and by treaty concession the claim of the American settlers
seemed incontrovertible, and perhaps it may fairly be said
that the whole country agreed in this view. When Mr. Jay,
while the war of independence was still in progress, was sent
to Spain to negotiate a treaty of amity and assistance, he was
specially charged with the duty to see that the free
navigation of the Mississippi was conceded. All his endeavors
to that end, however, resulted in failure, and he was
compelled to return home with the American claim still
disputed. In 1785 the negotiation was transferred to this
country, and Mr. Jay renewed his effort to obtain concessions,
but without avail. The tenacity with which Spain held to its
claim was so persistent that Congress in its anxiety to obtain
a treaty of commerce finally instructed Mr. Jay on its behalf
to consent that for twenty-five years the United States should
forbear to claim the right in dispute. The instruction was
given by the vote of the seven Northern States against a
united South; and the action was so distinctly sectional as to
threaten the stability of the Union. … In the West the
feeling of dissatisfaction was most intense and
uncompromising. The settlers of Kentucky already deemed
themselves sufficiently numerous and powerful to be entitled
to set up a state government of their own, and to have a voice
in the councils of the Confederation. … In Tennessee as well
as in Kentucky settlements had been going on rapidly; and
perhaps in the former even more distinctly than in the latter
a growing indifference to the national bond was manifest. …
One of the difficult questions which confronted the new
government, formed under the Federal constitution, was how to
deal with this feeling and control or remove it. Spanish
levies on American commerce were in some cases almost
prohibitory, reaching fifty or seventy-five per cent. ad
valorem, and it was quite out of the question that hardy
backwoodsmen trained to arms should for any considerable time
submit to pay them. If the national government failed to
secure their rights by diplomacy, they would seek redress in
such other way as might be open to them. … Among the most
prominent of the Kentucky settlers was General James
Wilkinson, who had gone there as a merchant in 1784. He was
shortly found advocating, though somewhat covertly, the
setting up of an independent State Government.
{2049}
In 1787 he opened trade with New Orleans, and endeavored to
impress upon the Spanish authorities the importance of an
amicable understanding with the settlers in the Ohio valley.
His representations for a time had considerable effect, and
the trade was not only relieved of oppressive burdens, but
Americans were invited to make settlements within Spanish
limits in Louisiana and West Florida. A considerable
settlement was actually made at New Madrid under this
invitation. But there is no reason to believe that genuine
good feeling inspired this policy; the purpose plainly in view
was to build up a Spanish party among the American settlers
and eventually to detach them from the United States. But the
course pursued was variable, being characterized in turn by
liberality and by rigor. Wilkinson appears to have been
allowed special privileges in trade, and this, together with
the fact that he was known to receive a heavy remittance from
New Orleans, begat a suspicion that he was under Spanish pay;
a suspicion from which he was never wholly relieved, and which
probably to some extent affected the judgment of men when he
came under further suspicion in consequence of equivocal
relations with Aaron Burr. In 1789 a British emissary made his
appearance in Kentucky, whose mission seemed to be to sound
the sentiments of the people respecting union with Canada. He
came at a bad time for his purposes; for the feeling of the
country against Great Britain was then at its height, and was
particularly strong in the West, where the failure to deliver
up the posts within American limits was known to have been
influential in encouraging Indian hostilities. The British
agent, therefore, met with anything but friendly reception.
… Meantime Spain had become so far complicated in European
wars as to be solicitous regarding the preservation of her own
American possessions, then bordered by a hostile people, and
at her suggestion an envoy was sent by the United States to
Madrid, with whom in October 1795 a treaty was made, whereby
among other things it was agreed that Spain should permit the
people of the United States for the term of three years to
make use of the port of New Orleans as a place of deposit for
their produce and merchandise, and to export the same free
from all duty or charge except for storage and incidental
expenses. At the end of the three years the treaty
contemplated further negotiations, and it was hoped by the
American authorities that a decisive step had been taken
towards the complete recognition of American claims. The
treaty, however, was far from satisfying the people of
Kentucky and Tennessee, who looked upon the assent of Spain to
it as a mere makeshift for the protection of her territory
from invasion. Projects for taking forcible possession of the
mouth of the Mississippi continued therefore to be agitated.
… The schemes of Don Francisco de Miranda for the overthrow
of Spanish authority in America now became important. Miranda
was of Spanish-American birth, and had been in the United
States while the war of Independence was pending and formed
acquaintance among the American officers. Conceiving the idea
of liberating the Spanish colonies, he sought assistance from
England and Russia, but when the French Revolution occurred he
enlisted in the French service and for a time held important
military positions. Driven from France in 1797 he took up his
old scheme again: looking now to England and America for the
necessary assistance. Several leading American statesmen were
approached on the subject, Hamilton among them; and while the
relations between France and the United States seemed likely
to result in war, that great man, who had no fear of evils
likely to result from the extension of territory, listened
with approval to the project of a combined attack by British
and American forces on the Spanish Colonies, and would have
been willing, with the approval of the government, to
personally take part in it. President Adams, however, frowned
upon the scheme, and it was necessarily but with great
reluctance abandoned. And now occurred an event of highest
interest to the people of the United States. Spain, aware of
her precarious hold upon Louisiana, in 1800 retroceded it to
France."
T. M. Cooley,
The Acquisition of Louisiana
(Indiana Historical Society Pamphlets, no. 3).
ALSO IN:
W. H. Safford,
The Blennerhassett Papers,
chapter 5.
H. Marshall,
History of Kentucky,
volume 1, chapters 12-15.
J. H. Monette,
Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi,
book 5, chapter 6 (volume 2).
J. M. Brown,
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
T. M. Green,
The Spanish Conspiracy.
LOUISIANA: D. 1798-1803.
The last days of Spanish rule.
The great domain transferred to France,
and sold by Napoleon to the United States.
The bounds of the purchase.
"During the years 1796-97 the Spanish authorities exhausted
every means for delaying a confirmation of the boundary line
as set forth in the treaty of 1783. By one pretext and
another, they avoided the surrender of the Natchez territory
and continued to hold the military posts therein. Not until
the 23d of March, 1798, was the final step taken by which the
Federal Government was permitted to occupy in full the
province of Mississippi. … Soon after this we find the newly
made territory of Mississippi occupied by a Federal force,
and, strange to say, with General Wilkinson in command. The
man who but lately had been playing the rôle of traitor, spy,
insurrectionist and smuggler, was now chief commander on the
border and was building a fort at Loftus Heights just above
the boundary line. The new governor of Louisiana [Gayoso de
Lemos], seeing the hope of detaching Kentucky and Tennessee
fall dead at his feet, finally turned back to the old policy
of restricting immigration and of discriminating against
Protestants. By the treaty signed at Madrid in 1795, it had
been stipulated that the citizens of the United States should
not only have free navigation of the Mississippi River, but
that they should also have the right to deposit in New Orleans
all their produce during the space of three years. This limit,
it was agreed, was to be extended by the Spanish Government,
or, instead of an extension of time, a new point on the island
of New Orleans was to be designated for depot. But at the
expiration of the three years Morales, the Spanish intendant
at New Orleans, declined to permit further deposits there, and
refused to designate another place in accordance with the
stipulation. This action aroused the people of the West; a
storm of resentment broke forth and the government of the
United States was forced to make a threatening demonstration
in the direction of Louisiana.
{2050}
Three regiments of the regular army were at once dispatched to
the Ohio. The people flew to arms. Invasion appeared
imminent." But the Spanish authorities gave way, and a new
intendant at New Orleans "received from his Government orders
to remove the interdict issued by Gayoso and to restore to the
Western people the right of deposit at New Orleans. These
orders he promptly obeyed, thus reviving good feelings between
his province and the United States. Trade revived; immigration
increased. … The deluge of immigration startled the
Spaniards. They saw to what it was swiftly tending. A few more
years and this tide would rise too high to be resisted and
Louisiana would be lost to the king, lost to the holy
religion, given over to freedom, republicanism and ruin. …
On the 18th of July … [1802] the king ordered that no more
grants of land be given to citizens of the United States. This
effectually killed the commerce of the Mississippi River, and
the indignation of the Western people knew no bounds. …
Rumors, apparently well founded, were afloat that the
irresistible genius of Napoleon was wringing the province from
Spain and that this meant a division of the territories
between France and the United States. To a large majority of
Louisiana's population these were thrillingly welcome rumors.
The very thought of once more becoming the subjects of France
was enough to intoxicate them with delight. The treaty of
Ildefonso, however, which had been ratified at Madrid on the
21st of March, 1801, had been kept a secret. Napoleon had
hoped to occupy Louisiana with a strong army, consisting of
25,000 men, together with a fleet to guard the coast; but his
implacable and ever watchful foe, England, discovered his
design and thwarted it. But by the terms of the treaty, the
colony and province of Louisiana had gone into his hands. He
must take possession and hold it, or he must see England
become its master. Pressed on every side at that time by wars
and political complications and well understanding that it
would endanger his power for him to undertake a grand American
enterprise, he gladly opened negotiations with the United
States looking to the cession of Louisiana to that Government.
… Napoleon had agreed with Spain that Louisiana should not
be ceded to any other power. … Diplomacy very quickly
surmounted so small an obstacle. … The treaty of cession was
signed on the 30th of April, 1803, the United States agreeing
to pay France 60,000,000 francs as the purchase price of the
territory. … In addition, the sum due American citizens …
was assumed by the United States. The treaty of April was
ratified by Napoleon in May, 1803, and by the Senate of the
United States in October. … Pausing to glance at this
strange transaction, by which one republic sells outright to
another republic a whole country without in the least
consulting the wishes of the inhabitants, whose allegiance and
all of whose political and civil rights are changed thereby,
we are tempted to wonder if the republic of the United States
could to-day sell Louisiana with the same impunity that
attended the purchase! She bought the country and its people,
just as she might have bought a desert island with its goats."
M. Thompson,
The Story of Louisiana,
chapter 6, with foot-note.
"No one could say what was the southwest boundary of the
territory acquired; whether it should be the Sabine or the Rio
del Norte; and a controversy with Spain on the subject might
at any time arise. The northwest boundary was also somewhat
vague and uncertain, and would be open to controversy with
Great Britain. [That] the territory extended west to the Rocky
Mountains was not questioned, but it might be claimed that it
extended to the Pacific. An impression that it did so extend
has since prevailed in some quarters, and in some public
papers and documents it has been assumed as an undoubted fact.
But neither Mr. Jefferson nor the French, whose right he
purchased, ever claimed for Louisiana any such extent, and our
title to Oregon has been safely deduced from other sources.
Mr. Jefferson said expressly: 'To the waters of the Pacific we
can found no claim in right of Louisiana.'"
Judge T. M. Cooley,
The Acquisition of Louisiana
(Indiana History Society Pamphlets, number 3).
"By the charter of Louis XIV., the country purchased to the
north included all that was contiguous to the waters that
flowed into the Mississippi. Consequently its northern
boundary was the summit of the highlands in which its northern
waters rise. By the tenth article of the treaty of Utrecht,
France and England agreed to appoint commissioners to settle
the boundary, and these commissioners, as such boundary,
marked this summit on the 49th parallel of north latitude.
This would not carry the rights of the United States beyond
the Rocky Mountains. The claim to the territory beyond was
based upon the principle of continuity, the prolongation of
the territory to the adjacent great body of water. As against
Great Britain, the claim was founded on the treaty of 1763,
between France and Great Britain, by which the latter power
ceded to the former all its rights west of the Mississippi
River. The United States succeeded to all the rights of
France. Besides this, there was an independent claim created
by the discovery of the Columbia River by Gray, in 1792, and
its exploration by Lewis and Clarke. All this was added to by
the cession by Spain, in 1819, of any title that it had to all
territory north of the 42d degree."
Rt. Rev. C. F. Robertson,
The Louisiana Purchase
(Papers of American Historical Association,
volume 1, page 259).
As its southwestern and southeastern boundaries were
eventually settled by treaty with Spain [see FLORIDA: A. D.
1819-1821], the Louisiana purchase embraced 2,300 square miles
in the present state of Alabama, west of the Perdido and on
the gulf, below latitude 31° north; 3,600 square miles in the
present state of Mississippi, south of the same latitude; the
whole of the present states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri,
Iowa, Nebraska, and the Dakotas; Minnesota, west of the
Mississippi; Kansas, all but the southwest corner; the whole
of the Indian Territory, and so much of Colorado, Wyoming, and
Montana as lies on the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains.
If it is held that the French claim was good to the Pacific,
then we may say that we owe the remainder of Montana, with
Idaho, Oregon and Washington to the same great purchase.
T. Donaldson,
The Public Domain,
page 105.
On the constitutional and political aspects of the Louisiana
purchase,
See UNITED STATES: A. D. 1803.
Detailed accounts of the interesting circumstances and
incidents connected with the negotiation at Paris will be
found in the following works:—
H. Adams,
History of the United States:
First Administration of Jefferson;
volume 2, chapters 1-3.
D. O. Gilman,
James Monroe,
chapter 4.
B. Marbois,
History of Louisiana,
part 2.
American State Papers: Foreign Relations,
volume 2, pages 506-583.
{2051}
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1805.
Lewis and Clark's exploration
of the northwestern region of the purchase, to the Pacific.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805.
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1812.
The purchase divided into
the Territories of Orleans and Louisiana.
The first named becomes the State of Louisiana;
the second becomes the Territory of Missouri.
"On the 26th of March, 1804, Congress passed an act dividing
the province into two parts on the 33d parallel of latitude,
the present northern boundary of Louisiana, and establishing
for the lower portion a distinct territorial government, under
the title of the territory of Orleans. The act was to go into
effect in the following October. One of its provisions was the
interdiction of the slave-trade. … The labors of the
legislative council began on the 4th of December. A charter of
incorporation was given by it to the city of New Orleans."
G: E. Waring, Jr., and G. W. Cable,
History and Present Condition of New Orleans
(United States Tenth Census, volume 19). pages 32-33.
"All north of the 33d parallel of north latitude was formed
into a district, and styled the District of Louisiana. For
judicial and administrative purposes this district, or upper
Louisiana as we shall continue to call it, was attached to the
territory of Indiana." But in March, 1805, Congress passed an
act "which erected the district into a territory of the first
or lowest grade, and changed its title from the District to
the Territory of Louisiana." Seven years later, in June 1812,
the Territory of Orleans (the lower Louisiana of old) having
been received into the federal Union as the State of
Louisiana, the territory which bore the ancient name was
advanced by act of Congress "from the first to the second
grade of territories, and its name changed to Missouri."
L. Carr,
Missouri,
chapter 5.
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1806-1807.
Burr's Filibustering conspiracy.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807.
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1812.
The Territory of Orleans admitted to the Union as
the State of Louisiana.
"The population of the Territory of Orleans had been augmented
annually by emigration from the United States. According to
the census of 1810, the whole territory, exclusive of the
Florida parishes, contained an aggregate of 76,550 souls. Of
this number, the city of New Orleans and its precincts
contained 24,552 persons, leaving 52,000 souls for the
remainder of the territory. Besides these, the inhabitants of
the Florida parishes amounted, probably, to not less than
2,500, including slaves. … Congress, by an act approved
February 11th, 1811, … authorized the election of a
convention to adopt a Constitution, preparatory to the
admission of the Territory into the Union as an independent
state. The convention, consisting of 60 delegates from the
original parishes, met according to law, on the first Monday
in November, and concluded its labors on the 22d day of
January following, having adopted a Constitution for the
proposed new 'State of Louisiana.' … The Constitution was
accepted by Congress, and the State of Louisiana was formally
admitted into the Union on the 8th day of April, 1812, upon an
equal footing with the original states, from and after the
30th day of April, it being the ninth anniversary of the
treaty of Paris. A few days subsequently, a 'supplemental act'
of Congress extended the limits of the new state by the
addition of the Florida parishes.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.
This gave it the boundaries it has at present."
J. W. Monette,
Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi,
book 5, chapter 15 (volume 2).
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1813-1814.
The Creek War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1815.
Jackson's defense of New Orleans.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1815 (JANUARY).
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1861 (January).
Secession from the Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1862 (April).
Farragut's capture of New Orleans.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
LOUISIANA: A. D.1862 (May-December).
New Orleans under General Butler.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MAY-DECEMBER: LOUISIANA).
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1862 (June).
Appointment of a Military Governor.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MARCH-JUNE).
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1864.
Reconstruction of the state under President Lincoln's plan.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1864.
The Red River Expedition.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865.
President Johnson's recognition of the reconstructed state
government.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865-1867.
The first Reconstruction experiment.
The Riot at New Orleans.
Establishment of military rule.
"In 1865 the returned Confederates, restored to citizenship by
the President's amnesty proclamation soon got control of
almost all the State [as reorganized under the constitution
framed and adopted in 1864].
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).
The Legislature was in their hands, as well as most of the
State and municipal offices; so, when the President, on the
20th of August, 1866, by proclamation, extended his previous
instructions regarding civil affairs in Texas so as to have
them apply to all the seceded States, there at once began in
Louisiana a system of discriminative legislation directed
against the freedmen, that led to flagrant wrongs in the
enforcement of labor contracts, and in the remote parishes to
numbers of outrages and murders. To remedy this deplorable
condition of things, it was proposed, by those who had
established the government of 1864, to remodel the
constitution of the State; and they sought to do this by
reassembling the convention, that body before its adjournment
having provided for reconvening under certain conditions, in
obedience to the call of its president. Therefore, early in
the summer of 1866, many members of this convention met in
conference at New Orleans, and decided that a necessity
existed for reconvening the delegates, and a proclamation was
issued accordingly by B. K. Howell, President pro tempore.
{2052}
Mayor John T. Monroe and the other officials of New Orleans
looked upon this proposed action as revolutionary, and by the
time the convention assembled (July 30) such bitterness of
feeling prevailed that efforts were made by the mayor and city
police to suppress the meeting. A bloody riot followed,
resulting in the killing and wounding of about 160 persons. I
happened [the writer is General Sheridan, then in command of
the Military Division of the Gulf] to be absent from the city
at the time, returning from Texas, where I had been called by
affairs on the Rio Grande. On my way up from the mouth of the
Mississippi I was met on the night of July 30 by one of my
staff, who reported what had occurred, giving the details of
the massacre—no milder term is fitting—and informing me
that, to prevent further slaughter, General Baird, the senior
military officer present, had assumed control of the municipal
government. On reaching the city I made an investigation, and
that night sent 6th of August, by an extended account of the facts of the
riot, containing the following statements]: … 'The
convention assembled at 12 M. on the 30th, the timid members
absenting themselves because the tone of the general public
was ominous of trouble. … About 1 P. M. a procession of say
from 60 to 130 colored men marched up Burgundy Street and
across Canal Street toward the convention, carrying an
American flag. These men had about one pistol to every ten
men, and canes and clubs in addition. While crossing Canal
Street a row occurred. … On arrival at the front of the
Institute [where the convention was held] there was some
throwing of brickbats by both sides. The police, who had been
held well in hand, were vigorously marched to the scene of
disorder. The procession entered the Institute with the flag,
about 6 or 8 remaining outside. A row occurred between a
policeman and one of these colored mob, and a shot was again
fired by one of the parties, which led to an indiscriminate
fire on the building through the windows by the policemen.
This had been going on for a short time, when a white flag was
displayed from the windows of the Institute, whereupon the
firing ceased, and the police rushed into the building. From
the testimony of wounded men, and others who were inside the
building, the policemen opened an indiscriminate fire upon the
audience until they had emptied their revolvers, when they
retired, and those inside barricaded the doors. The door was
broken in, and the firing again commenced, when many of the
colored and white people either escaped throughout the door or
were passed out by the policemen inside; but as they came out
the policemen who formed the circle nearest the building fired
upon them, and they were again fired upon by the citizens that
formed the outer circle. Many of those wounded and taken
prisoners, and others who were prisoners and not wounded, were
fired upon by their captors and by citizens. The wounded were
stabbed while lying on the ground, and their heads beaten with
brickbats. … Some were killed and wounded several squares
from the scene.' … Subsequently a military commission
investigated the subject of the riot, taking a great deal of
testimony. The commission substantially confirmed the
conclusions given in my despatches, and still later there as
an investigation by a select committee of the House of
Representatives. … A list of the killed and wounded was
embraced in the committee's report, and among other
conclusions reached were the following: … 'This riotous
attack upon the convention, with its terrible results of
massacre and murder, was not an accident. It was the
determined purpose of the mayor of the city of New Orleans to
break up this convention by armed force.' … The committee
held that no legal government existed in Louisiana, and
recommended the temporary establishment of a provisional
government therein." In the following March the Military
Reconstruction Acts were passed by Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1867 (MARCH).
General Sheridan was assigned to the command of the fifth
military district therein defined, consisting of Louisiana and
Texas.
P. H. Sheridan,
Personal Memoirs,
volume 2, chapters 10-11.
ALSO IN:
Report of Select Committee on New Orleans Riot,
39th Congress, 2d Session, H. R. Report, Number 16.
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1868.
Reconstruction complete.
Restored representation in Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868-1870.
----------LOUISIANA: End----------
LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY:
Threatened by the Rebel Army under Bragg.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).
----------LOUVAIN: Start--------
LOUVAIN: A. D. 1635.
Unsuccessful siege by the French.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.
LOUVAIN: A. D. 1706.
Taken by Marlborough and the Allies.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.
----------LOUVAIN: End--------
LOUVAIN, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).
LOUVRE, The.
"The early history of the Louvre is involved in great
obscurity. The name of its founder and the period of its
erection are alike unknown; the first notice of it we meet
with upon record is in the 7th century, when Dagobert kept
here his horses and hounds. The kings [Merovingeans] called
'fainéans' often visited it, when after dinner they rode in a
sort of coach through the forest, which covered this side of
the river, and in the evening returned in a boat, fishing by
the way, to the city, where they supped and slept. There is no
mention of this royal dwelling under the second, nor even
under the third race of kings, till the reign of Philip
Augustus. About the year 1204, that prince converted it into a
kind of citadel, surrounded with wide ditches and flanked with
towers. … The walls erected by Philip Augustus did not take
in the Louvre, but after having remained outside of Paris more
than six centuries, it was enclosed by the walls begun in
1367, under Charles V., and finished in 1383, under Charles
VI. … Charles IX., Henry III., Henry IV., and Louis XIII.,
inhabited the Louvre and added to its buildings. Nothing
remains of the old château of Philip Augustus, which Charles
V. repaired; the most ancient part now in existence is that
called 'le Vieux Louvre,' begun by Francis I. in 1539, and
finished by Henry II. in 1548."
History of Paris
(London, 1827), chapter 2 (volume 2).
{2053}
The origin of the word Louvre is believed to be a Saxon word,
'Leowar' or 'Lower,' which meant a fortified camp. … Francis
I. did little more than decide the fate of the old Louvre by
introducing the new fashion. His successors went on with the
work; and the progress of it may be followed, reign after
reign, till the last visible fragment of the Gothic castle had
been ruthlessly carted away. … Vast as is the Louvre that we